Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Casinos

Greg Hands: Which casinos he has visited in the course of his ministerial duties since 1 May 1997.

John Prescott: On 28 November 2004, I was in Sydney on official business to discuss the legacy of the Olympic games and the regeneration of the former Olympic sites. I visited the Star City casino, which is part of a major waterfront regeneration scheme in the city that I discussed with the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr. I was accompanied by a number of officials, including my permanent secretary and the chief executive of English Partnerships. I have not visited any other casinos.

Greg Hands: By giving such privileged access to one of the bidders, has not the Deputy Prime Minister seriously compromised the whole process of bidding for Britain's only regional casino?

John Prescott: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been reading too many press cuttings. Let us be clear, as I have been: I was not associated in any way with the planning or sale of the dome. The decisions were made in the Department by other Ministers, and I informed the House about them. As for my meeting with Mr. Anschutz, I promised when I first met him that we would meet regularly to ensure that he was fulfilling the obligations involved in the development of the dome—which meant 10,000 new homes, 24,000 jobs and £5 billion of private investment. I am quite prepared to meet people who provide jobs and investment of that kind, and it was quite right.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Deputy Prime Minister rightly says that he had no influence in relation to the dome and the establishment of a casino there, but may I ask him to use his influence in relation to the one casino for this country? May I ask him to support the siting of the casino in Lancashire, where it will regenerate the area and bring many thousands of jobs? Such an establishment is greatly needed in Lancashire.

John Prescott: I understand why my hon. Friend advocates placing a casino in Lancashire, but I assure him that I am not involved in any such decisions. The House decided that there would be an independent commission to decide how many casinos there should be and where they should be placed. The commission will report to the Secretary of State, who will come here and present recommendations to the House. Every Member will then be able to make his or her own decision on which recommendation to support. That is what the House decided, and every one of us will be involved in the subsequent decision.

Vincent Cable: During his various discussions with Mr. Anschutz and the Attorney-General, was the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the potential value of a dome casino licence was about £250 million? In view of the large sums involved, was his primary duty to avoid discussing the matter because of conflicts of interest, or to discuss it in order to secure a better deal on the dome site?

John Prescott: I was not involved in any discussions with Mr. Anschutz about the casino. As for the amount and the value, I saw in Australia that there are major regeneration benefits—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) has referred—but I have not been involved in any decisions on the casino, and I think that my action was right and proper.

Michael Gove: What role he has in the effective development of Government policy on planning in relation to gambling facilities.

John Prescott: As a Minister, I have no specific role in relation to gambling or planning, but as a parliamentarian I have exactly the same say as Opposition Members, because—as I have explained—in this House Members will have the final say on the location of any casinos. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for gambling policy, and the Department for Communities and Local Government is responsible for planning policy.

Michael Gove: Given the responsibilities that the Deputy Prime Minister used to exercise in the office of Deputy Prime Minister, will he take legal advice on whether he is in breach of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 and report back to the House, in the light of that Act's provisions, on how Government lawyers view his receipt of gifts and hospitality from Mr. Philip Anschutz?

John Prescott: That is typical of the wild charges that the hon. Gentleman used to make when he wrote his articles in  The Times. Let me make it clear that I do not believe that any act of corruption has been committed. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence he should provide it, rather than just making the allegations here.

Nicholas Winterton: The Deputy Prime Minister is a man of influence within Government. Will he take it from me that there is deep concern about the impact of gambling on indebtedness, which is increasing in this country? Will he ensure that all individuals and organisations making a bid for regional gambling centres are organisations and individuals of the very highest integrity?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that in discussions on the Gambling Bill—there was also pre-legislative scrutiny—a lot of consultation and debate took place, as the legislation was controversial. All views were expressed in the House, which finally came to a decision. I think that that decision was right and we must wait and see how it develops.

David Winnick: I am not an enthusiast for gambling, grand casinos or anything of that kind, as I have made clear previously, but is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour Members totally reject all the innuendos to the effect that he is somehow corrupt or dishonest? Whatever mistakes may have been made here or there, we know about the great contribution that he has made to the Government and to the Labour party and movement over many years.

John Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, though I do not expect it from Conservative Members. However, when it comes to accusations of corruption, Members must make a serious judgment. There is no corruption here and those charges should not be thrown around lightly in the House—however easily done in the press. I totally reject that and I hope that people will take my contribution over 35 years in Parliament into account, whether or not they agree with what I have done. I might add that over those 35 years I have never been employed in any other job; I have never received any payment from other bodies; I have simply carried out my job as a Member of Parliament. Can they say that on the other side of the Chamber?

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Children in Care

Wayne David: What progress has been made in developing a coherent strategy for alleviating the social exclusion likely to be suffered by children in care.

Hilary Armstrong: The Government have made tackling social exclusion in respect of children in care a priority and have improved standards for fostering services and children's care homes, put new duties on local authorities to promote the education of looked-after children and strengthened the rights and financial support for those leaving care.
	We are also publishing our social exclusion action plan in the autumn, which will frame our cross-government approach to tackling the social exclusion of vulnerable groups, including looked-after children. The action plan will closely co-ordinate with the forthcoming Department for Education and Skills consultation on proposals to transform the outcomes of looked-after children, with all of those issues considered in the light of the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.

Wayne David: I thank the Minister for her reply, but will she tell the House whether there has been any attempt to study examples of good practice from other European countries?

Hilary Armstrong: Yes. On appointment, I looked into various examples of good practice elsewhere and I was particularly impressed with what looked like very good outcomes in Germany and Denmark. I visited Germany two weeks ago and found that there, as in many other European countries, children's work force professionals—called social pedagogues—commonly look after children living away from home. The principles that they use to educate, challenge and engage with children seem extremely valuable and effective. The approach is focused on emphasising each child's individual potential in a holistic way, involving education in health and overall child development. We will look very carefully to establish whether we can incorporate such principles in our children's services.

John Bercow: Given that there are approximately 44,000 looked-after children in this country and that only about 8 per cent. currently obtain five A to C grade GCSEs and a mere 1 per cent. secure access to university, what discussions has the Minister had with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about the need to ensure that most vulnerable children are granted a legal entitlement to personalised learning?

Hilary Armstrong: That is an issue that we all take extremely seriously. I have had discussions with colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills. Actually, the figures suggest that about 11 per cent. now gain five GCSEs. I accept that that is not good enough, but it is more than double the number in 1997. We are not satisfied and we want to do whatever we can to enhance learning and opportunities for looked-after children. Both I and the DFES are looking into that matter extremely carefully at the moment.

Stephen Pound: May I tell my right hon. Friend that in the London borough of Ealing, which for 12 years enjoyed the wise and sagacious leadership of a Labour council and is now temporarily in the hands of the Tories, 10 per cent. of the looked-after children go on to university—the highest level anywhere in England and Wales? May I invite her to visit Ealing, despite its current political complexion, to see how we have achieved that excellent result?

Hilary Armstrong: I congratulate Ealing, and I am sure that my hon. Friend has been keeping his eye on what has been going on and ensuring that, indeed, best practice is implemented. He understands that we are looking at tackling social exclusion very much by learning from what is working best, so I will be delighted to join him in looking at Ealing's success.

Paul Rowen: Is the Minister aware of the activities of some private providers—noticeably, Greencorns—that move children around the country and provide homes not close to their family ties? When those children get into trouble, as they often do, they do not get the support that they need to help them.

Hilary Armstrong: I am concerned about too much movement of looked-after children. We are concerned to ensure not only that they have a stable experience, but that we do as much as possible to encourage contact with their own families. So I will take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said in relation to my discussions with the DFES and the proposals that it will produce later this year.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Climate Change

Paddy Tipping: When he last met representatives of the Chinese Government to discuss climate change.

John Prescott: During my visit to China in February this year, I discussed China's engagement on climate change and sustainable development with Premier Wen and other senior members of the Chinese Government, including State Councillor Tang. Together, we chair the UK-China taskforce. I also held discussions with Mayor Han of Shanghai to discuss the Dontang eco-city project, which is a new concept in building sustainable cities in which British companies are involved.
	The UK is leading the way internationally on city regeneration and sustainability, proving that it is possible to support jobs and economic growth in an environmentally responsible way. We are now sharing that knowledge and enterprise with other countries.

Paddy Tipping: With the Chinese economy growing by 13 per cent. a year and reports that a new coal-fired power station is being opened every fortnight in China, it is a major source of carbon pollution. How confident is the Deputy Prime Minister about involving China in a successful outcome post-Kyoto?

John Prescott: I have absolutely no doubt that China is a pretty active player in the desire to get a climate change programme, and the Prime Minister's effort at the G8 to include China and India is a major step forward in achieving an agreement that was not readily available to involve China and India in the Kyoto agreement. So I am absolutely convinced of that, and my hon. Friend will know that I discussed the issue on my last visit, last February, but he may also like to know that I opened the Ningbo campus of Nottingham university, which is a very important part of the education contacts between our two countries and, indeed, deals effectively with climate change studies, too.

Oliver Heald: Why does the Deputy Prime Minister feel he could give useful advice about Kyoto to the Chinese, given his own failed environmental policies at home: his failed pledge to ensure that fewer car journeys take place, his failed integrated transport system, and his Strategic Rail Authority that was so bad that it was immediately scrapped by his successor? Everything that he does goes wrong. Does not China deserve better?

John Prescott: Good comment; no truth. In reality, I made a successful contribution to Kyoto: we did get an agreement. On the environmental targets, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that we are the only country in Europe to achieve double the target level in the reduction of greenhouse gases. No other country in Europe has been able to achieve that. If I look at the Opposition's environmental and transport policies, although I am not sure what they are at the moment, I think that rail privatisation has been rejected. The 10-year plan that I introduced is being continued. More people are travelling on public transport than ever before. That sounds like success, not failure.

George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that despite the chaff from the Opposition, his well known and highly regarded leadership internationally on this issue is well respected? Does he also accept that if he can advise China on how to achieve a balance between economic growth and sustainable environmental policies, it would be a major step forward and one that Labour Members would really appreciate?

John Prescott: Anyone who has experience of travelling abroad, as the deputy Leader of the Opposition has, will be aware that one of things that is admired about Britain is that we have been able to achieve economic growth in a sustainable way, while at the same time achieving our climate targets. There are very few countries that have achieved that, and it is because of the success of this Labour Government's policies.

Norman Baker: When the Deputy Prime Minister met his Chinese opposite number, did he advocate adoption of the concept of contraction and convergence? What is his view of that concept?

John Prescott: I did not understand the question.

Casinos

James Duddridge: What discussions he has had with the Department for Communities and Local Government in relation to casino bids.

John Prescott: None.

James Duddridge: How can the Deputy Prime Minister not have had any discussions, given that Office of the Deputy Prime Minister civil servants, attending a Thames Gateway meeting in February, stated that Ministers would appreciate some joined-up thinking and would like a single bid for the Thames Gateway? Are those the same ODPM officials who received briefings from the Deputy Prime Minister following his meeting with the dome's owner?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has made accusations in the press and in the Chamber about the feeling in his constituency about whether we interfered with its application for a casino. The former Tory mayor said that we had: the present Tory mayor has made it clear that that was not true—

James Duddridge: It was not the mayor.

John Prescott: I shall quote what the Tory leader of Southend says— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) cannot shout after he has asked his question. He may not be happy with the answer, but he should not shout.

John Prescott: The Tory leader in Southend said:
	"There wasn't any pressure put on us".
	I accept that man's statement and that is exactly what happened. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in casino policy. I understand that his constituency party in Rochford and Southend, East receives funding from a company that wants to build a £15 million casino and hotel complex in Southend.

James Duddridge: That is a lie.

John Prescott: It sounds to me as though the hon. Gentleman is a busted flush—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for me to be fair if I cannot hear what is going on. I shall take advice on what has just been said and make a ruling —[ Interruption. ] Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) should be quiet. I understand that he is a Whip and I do not want Whips shouting from the Back Benches. The Deputy Prime Minister has made an allegation, but allegations have come from both sides of the House. The best thing to do is to ask questions and hear the answers without any allegations being made. That includes replies, which should not incorporate any allegations.

Clive Efford: Whether there will be a casino at the dome or not, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he is doing to bring about the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. I take the same view as the former Conservative mayoral candidate for London who, when asked on Radio 5 whether my right hon. Friend should have met with Anschutz, said that if he had not he would not have been doing his job properly. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done to bring about the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula and the job opportunities for my constituents.

John Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the overwhelming view in London, where people want more jobs and investment. To be fair to the Opposition, the development of the site was begun by Lord Heseltine. He wanted regeneration to take place, and we have carried on the process. To a certain extent, I am surprised that people attack the idea that houses, development, jobs and investment should not follow naturally. If that is not what the Opposition intended, it is certainly what the Government intended, and we have carried it out.

William Hague: Given the latest questions about the Deputy Prime Minister's compliance with the ministerial code and his actions in respect of casinos, and all the acknowledged breaches by a succession of Ministers who have now departed the Government, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government have lived up to their commitment to be purer than pure?

John Prescott: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has the direct responsibility to implement the ministerial code. In his considerations, he has made it clear when he thinks that the code has been breached, and when it has not. He made it clear at the weekend that I had not done so.

William Hague: I think that that means no—that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that the Government have been purer than pure. However, although he has been stripped of his Department, he still costs £2 million a year. Is it not time for him to recognise that that is neither comfortable for him nor acceptable to the country? Does not the idea that he cannot have a Department but can be left in charge of the country defy credibility? He mentioned that he has been in the House for 35 years, and I respect that, but I am someone who once resigned from office and I know that sometimes we all have to judge whether we are doing any favours for our party, our country or our own reputations. Is it not time for him to exercise that judgment?

John Prescott: I like the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that he resigned from Government. Did that not happen after a general election, when there was going to be a fresh start—with policies that the present Leader of the Opposition is rejecting every day? The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) says that he believes in consistent policies, but the country's rejection of the policies of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was shown by the fact that he won only one extra seat in that election. He did not resign: the electorate rejected Tory party policy and accepted what Labour believed in.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Voluntary Sector (Regulation)

John Robertson: What assistance the Government give to the voluntary sector in dealing with the regulatory burden.

Edward Miliband: The Government are taking forward a range of measures to reduce regulatory burdens on the third sector, including through the Charities Bill, which has completed its Committee stage in this House, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is being considered in another place.

John Robertson: The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill offers an approach to the repeal of unnecessary regulation, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better to go forward with an all-party consensus on the matter? If so, what is he doing to achieve that?

Edward Miliband: I agree very much that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is an extremely important measure. It introduces risk-based regulation, including for the Charity Commission, which has a lot of dealings with the voluntary sector, and it also allows us to repeal unnecessary regulations. The Opposition talk a lot about the need for reform and getting rid of unnecessary regulation. It is time for them to vote accordingly and support the Bill when it comes back to this House.

Peter Bone: The citizens advice bureau in Rushden, the second town in the Wellingborough constituency, was forced to close recently, which meant that people in desperate need of advice were left without an advice centre. It appears that the Government make no contribution to local citizens advice bureaux, but will they look at that again?

Edward Miliband: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I am happy to look into that specific case. On the basis of my local experience, I think that I am right in saying that citizens advice bureaux are generally funded by local authorities. However, I shall be happy to look into the matter that he raises.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Ageing

Harry Cohen: What oversight and co-ordination he has undertaken of the Government's policy on ageing; and if he will make a statement.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend will be aware that I chair the Cabinet Committee looking at these important issues. The next meeting is scheduled to take place very shortly. The Committee's terms of reference are
	"to develop and monitor the delivery of policy affecting older people".
	We have already made excellent progress over the past nine years, with 2 million pensioners lifted out of poverty, free eye tests for the over 60s and free TV licences. However, there remains more to do, and I am working to ensure that action is taken coherently across Departments to tackle the key issues facing the older generation.

Harry Cohen: That is an excellent record. As one of the big beasts of the Government and, in this instance, as the Minister with responsibility for the Government's policies on ageing, will the Deputy Prime Minister have a word with another big beast, the Chancellor, to facilitate the 1 million-plus additional jobs that are needed—including with flexible working arrangements—for the over-55s? Will he also say whether more legislation is being considered to remove the barriers to people working longer, if they wish to?

John Prescott: I certainly will take up with the Chancellor, as another big beast, the point that my hon. Friend makes, but the House will be very happy at the fact that the Chancellor's wife has given birth to a baby boy.
	The Government are clearly committed to doing a lot more on this issue. Our measures will prohibit the unjustified direct age discrimination that many in this House have complained about, and all harassment and victimisation on the ground of age, of people young and old. It is important to keep more people in work, because doing so makes an important contribution to maintaining increases in what are record levels of employment. That aim has a major part to play, and I am attempting to co-ordinate across government in order to achieve it.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Nigel Waterson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 July.

Tony Blair: Before I list my engagements, I am sure that the House will join me in mourning the loss of our late colleague, Kevin Hughes, who died on Sunday from motor neurone disease. We will remember Kevin as a thoroughly decent human being: loyal, immensely likeable—a man who showed the same high courage as he approached the end as he had shown throughout his life in politics. We send our deepest sympathy to Lynda and her family.
	I am also sure that the House will join me in offering our condolences to the family of Corporal John Cosby, who died in Iraq at the weekend. Our sympathy and prayers are with them at this difficult time. In the last 24 hours, we have once again had reason to be grateful for the professionalism of our forces, as we have seen HMS Gloucester evacuate British citizens from Beirut.
	Mr. Speaker, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

Nigel Waterson: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer and I join in his condolences, particularly in respect of Kevin Hughes, who was a very decent man. Will the Prime Minister find time in his busy schedule to meet a broadly based cross-party delegation from Eastbourne, made up of people who are desperately concerned about financial pressures, job cuts and the loss of core services such as maternity from our local district general hospital?

Tony Blair: I am perfectly happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and any delegation. However, I have to say to him that it is important to recognise that the deficit in his trust area must be dealt with, and that, at the same time as they deal with that trust, hospitals in his area will still be cutting their waiting times and waiting lists. In that area they have had, for example, some 4,500 more nurses since 1997, so we have put a substantial amount of investment into Eastbourne. I entirely understand the concerns that arise as the trust makes sure that it comes into financial balance, but it does have to come into financial balance.

Stephen Hesford: My right hon. Friend will know that the 135th open golf championship is due to start in my constituency tomorrow. This is the first time in nearly 40 years that the championship has taken place at Hoylake. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the partners who brought that about—the Royal and Ancient and Royal Liverpool golf clubs, and the Labour-led Wirral borough council? Will he also—

Hon. Members: Speech!

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary question is sufficient.

Tony Blair: Yes, I certainly give my congratulations to everyone at Hoylake on all that they have done to bring the open there. I wish everyone the best of luck.

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in what he said about Kevin Hughes? He was a man who believed in plain speaking and hard working, and many colleagues will have fond memories of him in this House. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. I also join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Corporal John Cosby, who was killed in Iraq at the weekend. He died serving his country, and our thoughts should be with his family, too.
	Will the Prime Minister confirm that this week, the key part of the home information packs is being ditched?

Tony Blair: As a result of representations made by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, it will not be possible to proceed with the mandatory home condition report. However, we will of course have to proceed with the energy performance certificate, as that is now required by European Union legislation. We will obviously wait until the pilots have reported to see what more we can do to make sure that we do not end up in a situation—this is the reason for the home improvement packs—of spending round about £1 million a day, as ordinary consumers are at the moment, on abortive house sales. It was entirely sensible, because of the energy performance certificate, to go down this route, but as a result of the representations of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, we are going to have to change that.

David Cameron: I think that the Prime Minister needs to mug up on this area; after all, he will be moving house soon.
	The fact is that the Minister for Housing and Planning said that introducing home condition reports would have "significant risks" and "potential disadvantages". For months we were told about the benefits of the reports, and now we are being told about the disadvantages. Why did Ministers get it so wrong?

Tony Blair: There would be tremendous benefits from the home condition reports— [Laughter.] Of course there would: people waste a lot of money acquiring reports, then losing that money if the sale does not go through. That is the very reason for doing this. Alongside that is the fact that, irrespective of what happens, we will have to have the energy performance certificate. If the Council of Mortgage Lenders, having consulted its members, says that that will not be enough for people to get a mortgage, because lenders will ask for an additional report, it is of course sensible to make it voluntary rather than mandatory.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister is worried about people wasting money when they move house, he should have stopped the Chancellor clobbering everyone with extra stamp duty.
	Let us look at another tax: will the Prime Minister confirm that the planning gain supplement tax, which the Chancellor announced in his Budget as a key reform to pay for local infrastructure, is also being ditched?

Tony Blair: I will not confirm that at all. It is extremely important to make sure that we extract the maximum gain we can when planning goes through because it is important that we be able to invest the maximum amount of money in housing.
	As we are talking about housing, the most important thing for home owners in this country is that interest rates are half what they were in the Tory years. As he is someone who worked at the Treasury when mortgage repossession was going on, I do not think we will take lessons on housing from the right hon. Gentleman.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister needs to get with the programme. The fact is that the Planning Minister has met a Treasury Minister, and that tax has been shelved.
	Let us take another example of a simple reform that is being dropped: the Government promised at the election "tougher sentences" for those who assault public servants. Why have the Government neutered the Bill that would bring that about in law?

Tony Blair: We do not neuter any proposals— [Interruption.] We do not. There should be the strongest possible penalties for people who assault public servants. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that when we introduced tougher penalties in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, he voted against.

David Cameron: We need a tougher penalty in law, and the Prime Minister neutered the Bill. There is a clear pattern: police mergers, dropped; ID cards, dropped; home information packs, dropped; planning reforms, dropped; laws to protect public servants, dropped. Given the Government's complete inability to implement their programme, how can he possibly believe that the right thing to do is to put the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the country?

Tony Blair: Let me explain: we most certainly are not dropping proposals for identity cards, or tougher penalties regarding public servants, or planning reforms. If we want to talk about policy making, I have calculated that the right hon. Gentleman has had four since becoming Leader of the Opposition. The first was a new British Bill of Rights, which was denounced by the chairman of his democracy commission as nonsense. The second was English votes for English MPs, described as a constitutional abortion by a senior Back-Bench Tory MP. Then came his law and order policy—hug a hoodie. We have not heard much about that. Finally, his flagship European policy was to leave the European People's party, which was first to be done immediately, then within months and now not until 2009. Before he criticises our policy-making skills, he should acquire some of his own.

David Cameron: These sessions are about the Prime Minister answering questions on behalf of the Government. I know that he does not like being interrogated, but with the way things are going at Scotland Yard, he had better get used to it. For the purposes of the tape, Mr. Speaker, I am interviewing the Prime Minister.
	Does not the Prime Minister's complete lack of judgment in trusting the Deputy Prime Minister show that it is high time that he and his deputy saddled up and rode off into the sunset?

Tony Blair: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to ask me about any of his policy positions. We could take another one, actually: let us look at his policy on nuclear power—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave the Prime Minister a good innings for the last set of policies, so perhaps we could be brief this time.

Tony Blair: Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right; it is best not to talk about Opposition policies because they are better for an Opposition than a Government. But let me just tell the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) that we will continue with policies for a strong economy, not the boom and bust of the Tory years, and for investment in our health service and education, and with family-friendly policies, and investment in Sure Start, the new deal and lifting pensioners out of poverty. We will continue with the policies that have made this country stronger, fairer and better—not those that brought us 18 years of Conservative misrule.

Dawn Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are still clearing up the mess of the Tory years? Although they have acknowledged that privatisation of the railways was a mistake, that does not help to make stations safer, so will my right hon. Friend assure me that the new franchises will be awarded only to companies that put safety first and people before profit?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank her for drawing my attention to what is actually another Tory policy—[ Laughter.] Sorry. My hon. Friend is right: the Tory policy under the previous Government was disastrous, but fortunately it has been turned around under this Government.

Menzies Campbell: I begin by associating my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of condolence and sympathy that we heard from the Prime Minister a moment or two ago.
	Yesterday, the House joined the Prime Minister in condemning Hezbollah's bombardment of Israel, but how can we be even-handed if we are not willing to condemn Israel's disproportionate response, which the Prime Minister of Lebanon has described as cutting his country to pieces?

Tony Blair: Let me repeat what I said yesterday. It is important that Israel's response is proportionate and does its best to minimise civilian casualties, but it would stop now if the soldiers who were kidnapped—wrongly, when Hezbollah crossed the United Nations blue line—were released. It would stop if the rockets stopped coming into Haifa, deliberately to kill innocent civilians. If those two things happened, I promise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I would be the first to say that Israel should halt its operations.

Menzies Campbell: I am not sure that that squares with the Prime Minister's conversations with President Bush. In the course of those conversations, did he understand that it was America's policy to allow Israel a further period for military action? Is that why the UK is not calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire?

Tony Blair: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seriously saying that I should call for an unconditional ceasefire by Israel now—[Hon. Members: "Both sides."] I should call for both sides to do it? May I just point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that our influence with Hezbollah has been somewhat limited? It would not be possible. Does he not understand that Hezbollah fired somewhere in the region of 1,600 rockets into northern Israel? I agree that what is happening in Lebanon is tragic and terrible, not least for the Lebanese people and the Lebanese Government—a Government who have brought their country out of the dark days into democracy— [ Interruption. ] Yes, but if this is to stop, it has to stop by undoing how it started, and it started with the kidnap of Israeli soldiers and the bombardment of northern Israel. If we want this to stop, that has to stop.

Roger Berry: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Members on the Labour Benches are thirsty to discuss the equal rights of Scottish and Welsh MPs, the priority of parliamentary sovereignty over a Bill of Rights and exactly what it means to hug a hoodie? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to secure a debate on those issues in the House, as the Leader of the Opposition is clearly frit about doing so?

Tony Blair: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to put forward policies that allow us to have one class of Member of Parliament in this House. Anything else would do deep damage to the British constitution.

John Redwood: Can the Prime Minister explain why it is that since the Labour Government took over, Ireland has grown four times as quickly as Scotland? Does that not mean that there is not only a problem of disloyalty in No. 11, but a problem of incompetence?

Tony Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman compares the Scottish economy today with the Scottish economy 10 years ago, he will find it much stronger. There are more people in work and fewer people are unemployed. That is a good record under this Government.

Clive Efford: If my right hon. Friend has a space in his diary tomorrow lunchtime, may I invite him to join me at Charlton Athletic's training ground in Eltham to celebrate the opening of their community centre for skills, supported by Charlton's charitable trust, Barclays Spaces for Sports and the Football Foundation? From my constituency, Charlton run one of the biggest community action programmes in Europe, possibly even in the world. They engage with young people and provide educational opportunities and employment opportunities for them. If he cannot join us tomorrow, will he send a message of congratulations to Charlton for the work that they do?

Tony Blair: I am very happy to send a message of congratulations to Charlton on their wonderful new sporting facility, which will do so much for young people. I congratulate the Football Foundation and Barclays bank, which I think are the other partners, and I also congratulate Charlton on the wise re-signing of Darren Bent.

Greg Clark: Will the Prime Minister please help to expedite the approval of the new private finance initiative hospital at Pembury in my constituency?

Tony Blair: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that question, so that I could learn the details of the matter, which is helpful. All major PFI schemes are being taken forward, and the Department of Health asked Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in January to reappraise its proposals for the Maidstone and Pembury hospital sites to make sure that they could demonstrate long-term affordability. I am glad to inform the hon. Gentleman that the reappraisal report for that scheme has been completed and we are aiming to announce decisions from the reappraisal exercise, including that for the trust, shortly. Therefore, we will be in touch with him shortly. As he knows, the capital value of the scheme is almost £300 million.

Michael Meacher: Whatever the proximate causes of the current middle east crisis, is it not clear that there will be no solution while Muslims believe that the political route to a viable and sustainable Palestinian state is blocked and at the same time Israel believes that it can get more by the use of military force and annexation of large tracts of Palestinian land than by seriously negotiating the Quartet road map? In those circumstances, should we not only be calling on the EU to demand a very clear and unambiguous statement of a ceasefire but, more important, more vigorously confronting the United States that, if it does not put considerably more pressure on Israel for a—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too long.

Tony Blair: There is a problem with the negotiated solution to this. After all, it is now clear that everyone wants a two-state solution, and the road map is there and agreed by the whole of the Quartet, including the European Union, the UN, Russia and America, obviously. This problem is not being held back by America or by anyone's intransigence and refusal to negotiate; it is being held back by the fact that we cannot even begin the essential preconditions for the road map to exist properly. Those essential preconditions are about security and about ensuring that, for example, the thing that sparked everything on Gaza, which was to do with the kidnap of an Israeli soldier, and other such things stop.
	I share my right hon. Friend's concern. I pushed for the adoption of the road map. I pushed for a two-state solution. But in the end the only negotiated way through this is by everyone committing themselves to exclusively peaceful, democratic means, and that has to hold on both sides of the border—not just on the Israeli side, but on the Palestinian side.

Human Trafficking

Evan Harris: For what reasons the Government has not ratified the Council of Europe Convention against human trafficking.

Tony Blair: The UK Government are currently considering the Council of Europe convention against human trafficking agreed last year. At present only one country, Moldova, has ratified that convention, but let me be clear that we are determined to tackle human trafficking. The police have set up the UK human trafficking centre to continue the fight against that crime, and Operation Pentameter resulted in over 150 arrests and the rescue of 75 trafficking victims.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Prime Minister. Thirty of the 45 Council of Europe countries have signed the convention, but we have not done so. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), and his officials said in the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the fear of "a pull factor" was preventing the UK Government from signing the convention. But is the Prime Minister aware that in Italy there is no evidence of a pull factor, and a hundred times as many women have been saved and there have been a hundred times as many prosecutions? Will he reflect again for the sake of the victims of trafficking, and allow the UK to sign the convention?

Tony Blair: I will reflect again. The hon. Gentleman rightly puts his finger on the reason for our refusal to sign and ratify the convention so far. An absolute 30-day reflection period is required for victims who are here without leave, to enable them to recover from the experience that they have been through. Our worry is that, unless we are very careful about the way in which that is implemented, it will cause a major problem with people who come here under the auspices of organised crime and are not proper asylum seekers, as we would be obliged to keep them for a fixed period. I am afraid we have to examine what that means in practice for our system before we can agree the convention.

Denis MacShane: Last week, the Prime Minister agreed to meet a delegation led by myself on the issue. There is widespread support in the House for the signing—not ratification, which is different—of the convention, as well as widespread support among the police, Anti-Slavery International and Amnesty International. I would rather not meet him, because I do not want to discuss a problem. I would rather that the Home Office provided a solution without too much time passing.

Tony Blair: I entirely understand what my right hon. Friend is saying, and he made his point in a very reasonable way. I will look at the issue again, but we need an answer on that point. It is not only Britain that has not signed the convention—countries such as Spain have not done so because they, too, are worried about the same problem. However, if we can find a way around it—and we may be able to do so—that would obviously allow us to sign.

Engagements

Anne McIntosh: Is the Prime Minister aware that the British Sugar factory in York will close in January or February next year, leading to a large number of job losses in the city? More particularly, it will cause a loss of earnings for farmers in North Yorkshire. Will he agree to meet some of the sugar beet growers in North Yorkshire to see whether there is a way forward, perhaps by developing sugar beet into bioethanol? He will appreciate that sugar beet has had a great influence as a rotation crop and on the environment, so it would be a body blow to local farmers to lose it.

Tony Blair: I am happy to meet the hon. Lady. I am aware of the fact that there is an important potential for sugar beet and biofuel, but I cannot offer any assurances. I obviously sympathise with her constituents' plight, but I would have to see whether there is anything that Government can do, and there may not be.

Shona McIsaac: What advice would my right hon. Friend give a Member of Parliament who voted against the introduction of two weeks paid paternity leave, who voted against extending maternity leave to 26 weeks, and who voted against the request for flexible working? Would that advice include the words, "On your bike, Dave"?

Tony Blair: I think that, if that was not just one offence but a serial offence of changing one's mind, I would advise them not to open their leadership campaign by saying that consistency is a vital thing in politics.

John Maples: May I urge the Prime Minister to find time in his busy day to rethink his holiday plans? I do not know which Italian palazzo he has lined up this year, but may I commend to him the benefits of a holiday in the United Kingdom? One of the benefits for the rest of us, of course, is the fact that he would not have to leave the Deputy Prime Minister in charge. If the Italian palazzo has a croquet lawn and a diary secretary, however, perhaps they could cut a deal.

Tony Blair: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very helpful advice.

Mark Hendrick: My right hon. Friend will be aware of our policy on the renewable transport fuels obligation, which will ensure that 5 per cent. of fuels are biofuels. A million tonnes of carbon will be prevented from entering the atmosphere every year, which is the equivalent of a million cars coming off the road. Is it not true that the Government have done a tremendous amount on climate change, and will continue to do so in future?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have done a great deal to tackle the issue. Unfortunately, we need to do a lot more, which was the purpose of the energy review. One vital part of reducing carbon output is the climate change levy, which has been and will be responsible for carbon emissions into our atmosphere being reduced by millions of tonnes. The energy review gives us a sound way forward—a proper policy basis for planning for the future of this country. The interesting thing about the G8 summit is that what we had in the British energy review is four-square behind the thinking of the leading countries of the world.

Robert Goodwill: I know that the Prime Minister is a big supporter of the tourist industry. Has he considered taking his holiday this year in Scarborough? I am sure that he will be interested to know that many people who visit Scarborough as tourists subsequently decide to make it their permanent retirement home.

Tony Blair: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful suggestion. One of the advantages would be bumping into him in the course of my holiday. I intend to have a good holiday, and I wish him one too.

Ronnie Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Blyth Valley council's excellent antisocial behaviour team, which is led by Ian Johnson and supported by the local police? Although the people responsible for antisocial behaviour are only a small minority in Blyth Valley, we do not hug them. We deal with them.

Tony Blair: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was about to add to the holiday suggestions. He is right. Although there is a great deal more to do on antisocial behaviour, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say, none the less antisocial behaviour legislation, where used by local authorities and the police, has had a major impact in local communities and we will strengthen the law still further. There are those who used to describe it as a gimmick, but it is not a gimmick. It is a vital part of making our communities safer.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister will know of the widespread disappointment at the failure of the United Nations review conference in New York a fortnight ago to agree principles on the transfer of light weapons and arms, even though 150 countries supported that. Can we rely on the UK Government to adhere to their manifesto commitment to challenge the few Governments who continue to block the process?

Tony Blair: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We have pushed the matter very hard for a considerable time, but as his question implies, it is not simply us—it is the whole of the international community that must agree the process. We fully support it and will continue to encourage others to support it.

Charlotte Atkins: My two Sure Start schemes and my two children's centres are transforming the lives of the most vulnerable children in my constituency, but can my right hon. Friend give me assurances about their future funding?

Tony Blair: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to fund Sure Start and children's centres. She is right to say that they perform a vital task in many communities. I know that the Sure Starts in my own community have been immensely popular. About 800,000 people are benefiting from the programmes, and the great thing about Sure Start is not merely the help that it gives to the children, but the help that it gives to the parents. It has had a very great benefit in many constituencies, and we will certainly continue to support it.

Andrew George: Local people in my area want to know what they have done to deserve Government-appointed trust members and managers who are slashing services, sacking staff, closing wards and compromising clinical safety. As the Prime Minister is in a meeting mood, will he agree to meet a delegation of patients and clinicians from my constituency to explore the serious challenges behind an extremely serious situation?

Tony Blair: I know the hon. Gentleman will continue to make representations on the matter, but I point out to him that it is not a question of management and people being appointed to the board; it is a question of ensuring that however much money we put into the national health service—we have put in vast additional sums that have reduced waiting times, reduced waiting lists, reduced waits for treatment such as cardiac care, and made sure that we are cutting the number of people dying from diseases such as cancer and heart disease—and although it has had a huge impact, every single trust has to live within its means. Sometimes trusts have to reconfigure services, but I do not believe that they will do so to the detriment of clinical management, clinical care or patient care in communities.

Adrian Bailey: My right hon. Friend has often said that it is essential to be at the centre of decision making in Europe. Will he tell me his assessment of the effectiveness of the current political groupings in representing Britain's interests in Europe?

Tony Blair: We will, of course, remain as part of the grouping of the centre left parties, and it is extremely important that the Conservative party also remains part of its grouping. I have a feeling that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has changed the Conservative party's position, on which I congratulate him.

Business of the House

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be, first, a motion to approve the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2006. Then, in response to requests from both sides of the House, there will be a debate on international affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The debate on international development, which was due tomorrow, will now be scheduled for another date. I shall, of course, make my usual business statement tomorrow as well.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for acceding in his statement to the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House to debate international affairs, particularly the growing problems in the middle east. Tomorrow we will have departmental questions, his normal business statement, the order that he has mentioned and, possibly, a statement by a Minister. Will he programme tomorrow's business so that we can guarantee four hours for the international affairs debate?

Jack Straw: I cannot formally programme the business, but we will do our best to ensure that it proceeds as quickly as possible. The order is down for a maximum of an hour and a half, but, frankly, it is not particularly controversial. Two organisations connected with Omar Bakri Mohammad are to be proscribed. The case for proscribing the first organisation, the Baluchistan Liberation Army, speaks for itself. The second organisation, the TAK, is a Turkish terrorist organisation that has admitted to carrying out terrorist outrages in Turkey. Provided that hon. Members are relatively brief, we should be able to proceed quickly.

David Heath: I, too, thank the Leader of the House for providing an opportunity to debate foreign affairs, for which, as he knows, we have been asking for some time. Tomorrow's debate will inevitably deal with the developing, and concerning, situation in the middle east. I repeat my other request in relation to foreign affairs, which is for a specific debate on Iraq. Tomorrow it will be two years to the day since the House last debated Iraq in Government time.

Jack Straw: Tomorrow's debate is on international affairs, so there will be every opportunity to discuss Iraq, and I have no doubt that the matter will be raised. The need to schedule a foreign affairs debate has raised an issue: it is eccentric that while some debates are programmed in Government time each year, including five debates on defence and a number of others at the request of the House, other key areas, including international development and foreign affairs, must take their chance in negotiations through the usual channels. I hope to ask the Modernisation Committee, which I chair, to re-examine how scheduled debates in Government time are organised and which subjects are debated.

Alex Salmond: Would it not be better to have a substantive debate on the situation in the middle east, rather than an Adjournment debate on international affairs? There is a widespread feeling on both sides of the House that the United Kingdom Government have abandoned their role as an honest broker and have become a client state of an American Administration who are failing to live up to their global responsibilities. A substantive debate would allow "Yo Blair" to develop some independence of mind and thought.

Jack Straw: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a small error, which is that when he speaks for himself he thinks that he is speaking for the whole House. It is appropriate for such an issue to be discussed on a motion for the Adjournment, so that debate can be very wide-ranging. None the less, I am up for there being more debates in Government time on substantive motions. Indeed, there have been two in recent weeks—one on the BBC and the other on the pensions White Paper. In many circumstances, that is appropriate. I am not in the least worried, and neither is my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, about having a debate on foreign policy on a substantive motion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to use some of his Supply day time for a debate on that, let us see it.

Andrew MacKay: The great majority of Members will be extremely grateful to the Leader of the House for moving so quickly to ensure that there will be an Adjournment debate on international affairs tomorrow. Had there not been such a debate, our constituents would not have understood why we were going into recess next week without one. May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further? If, unfortunately, terrible events develop in the middle east during the recess, which might well involve our troops, can he give the House an assurance that it will be briefly recalled to debate those matters?

Jack Straw: The question of the recall of Parliament is kept under active review by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by senior Ministers throughout the recess. I am not just using that as a formula. The right hon. Gentleman will know, because it is a matter of record, that the House has been recalled on three occasions in the past nine years—in 1998, 2001 and 2002. If it is necessary, and subject of course to consultation with you, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that it will be recalled.

Home Office: Reform Action Plan

John Reid: I should like to make a statement about our plans for transforming the Home Office. I have today placed in the Library a copy of a reform action plan which gives details of the changes that we intend to make.
	All political change should start with values and objectives. The Home Office exists to protect the key elements of civilised society: to reduce fear and increase security, from global terrorism to local cohesion in our streets and communities, and from justice and fairness to the protection of opportunities to live life in security. However, the context in which we seek to apply those values is changing faster than ever before, and changing fundamentally, creating new and different challenges for the future.
	In the past 15 years, we have seen no less than seismic geopolitical changes, ranging from the global to the local. Globally, the old cold war had frozen the world into relative immobility. States were frozen, ethnic tensions and religious extremism were repressed, borders were inviolable, and peoples were largely static. The end of the cold war brought a torrent of new problems and, above all, the challenge of international mobility on a hitherto unimaginable scale. We have seen unprecedented levels of migration, with the movement of more than 200 million people in 2005, the development of international terrorism— [ Interruption. ] That is hardly a laughing matter. We have also seen the growth of global and organised crime.
	Moving from the global to the local, relative immobility has given way to social and geographic mobility, whereby the old group allegiances, extended family relationships and inherited patterns of voting and religious observance have broken down, and with them the old forms of community cohesion. Unlike most other Government Departments, we find that in this changing context many of the people whom the Home Office is trying to deal with—prisoners, criminals and illegal immigrants—see it as their primary objective not to co-operate with the Government, but to resist our authority and evade our control.
	In the face of those challenges, the Home Office has been in a process of change and reform for some years. The Department now has a more streamlined focus as a result of some of our responsibilities being transferred to other Departments. I give credit to my predecessors and the civil servants who worked with them for facing those challenges. They took a system that was designed before the cold war and improved it in three important ways: through additional resources, improvements in technology and legislative and practical solutions.
	Those improvements have led to notable successes in key matters. Crime is down significantly—the chance of being a victim of crime in this country is the lowest since 1981. We have record numbers of police and an additional 6,300 community support officers on the streets. Asylum applications are now tackled in two months, as opposed to 22 months under the previous Government. The UK Passport Service, which was failing just a few years ago, now regularly tops customer service polls, beating some leading private sector organisations. It is a shining example of transformation, and what can be achieved.
	However, the underlying systems and practices for dealing with those issues have not changed sufficiently. Many of the fundamentals that underlie the systems in the Home Office were designed for a pre-cold war era. In the face of the huge challenges that I outlined earlier, we have now reached the limit of what can be achieved without a fundamental overhaul. The Home Office capability review, which is published today, strongly reinforces those views.
	Some of the inadequacies have surfaced recently—in co-ordination, administration and accounts. In co-ordination, the House knows only too well—I do not have to rehearse the matter—how the release of foreign prisoners challenged systems across the Home Office and the criminal justice system, and found them wanting.
	In administration, the House knows that, for example, the National Audit Office last year suggested that 283,000 unsuccessful asylum applicants might still be here—excluding dependants and those who claimed asylum before 1994 and after 2004—reflecting the difficulties of successive Governments in removing failed asylum seekers. That is reflected in the immigration and nationality directorate's case load of around 400,000 to 450,000 electronic and paper records, which, as hon. Members also know, are riddled with duplication and errors, and include cases of individuals who have since died or left the country, or are now EU citizens.
	As for accounts, the House knows that the Home Office's resource accounts for 2004-05 were disclaimed by the National Audit Office. We have sought to remedy those individual instances. I have today set out in a written ministerial statement, through my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, our plans to improve the way in which we deal with foreign national prisoners. We will tackle the case load in the IND with the aim of clearing it—not in 25 years, as has been suggested, but in five or less. We will put our books in order. However, as today's capability review shows, we need to go much further in general and fundamental reform.
	For all those reasons, I am today setting out plans for an ambitious set of reforms across the Department. They are outlined in the document that we published today, and I shall highlight some of them. We will sharpen the Home Office's focus on its core purpose of protecting the public through the six key priorities set out in today's plan. We will establish a new top team with a reshaped Home Office board and 15 immediate changes at director level—that is more than a quarter of all directors.
	We will reshape radically the structure of the Home Office, with a major shift in responsibility and resource to the front line. We will fulfil our commitment to reduce the total size of Home Office strategic and operational headquarters by 30 per cent. by 2008—and today I can also tell hon. Members that I am making a commitment to a further reduction of 10 per cent. in headquarters staff by 2010.
	The cumulative effect of these changes will be to reduce the size of the headquarters of the Home Office and its agencies from 9,200 in 2004 to 6,500 in 2008 and to 5,900 by 2010. These changes will mark the biggest shift from the centre to the front line in the Home Office's history. We will thereby save £115 million a year by 2010 in HQ costs, which we will invest in improving front-line services.
	We will go further by establishing the immigration and nationality directorate as an executive agency of the Home Office—a shadow agency will be in place by April 2007—with strong accountability arrangements. I shall give more details of this in the next few days. We will establish clear performance frameworks for the operational services of the Home Office—the immigration and nationality directorate, the National Offender Management Service, and the identity and passport service—and hold the heads of those services accountable for operational performance. The National Offender Management Service headquarters will be focused on the job of commissioning high-quality services for managing offenders and of driving up the performance of the probation and prison services. As a result, the headquarters of NOMS will get progressively smaller. We will reduce it by 50 per cent. by 2010.
	We will develop a renewed contract between Ministers and officials, clarifying respective roles and expectations in relation to policy, strategic decisions, operational delivery and management. We will seek to reduce further the bureaucratic burden on the police and other partners in tackling crime, by implementing simpler performance arrangements for policing crime and drugs.
	We are also launching today a radical reform programme in the Home Office, with seven strands of change designed to transform the culture, skills, systems, processes and data of the Department. Today we have set out a clear action plan to deliver this reform, and more. By September, we will develop a full implementation programme. An external audit of progress will be conducted in December and annually thereafter. In the next few days, we will supplement today's plan with two further sets of proposals: on rebalancing the criminal justice system and on reforming our immigration and nationality directorate.
	We are determined to deliver a confidently led and well managed Home Office which delivers high-quality services to protect the public and better meets their expectations, and which builds through transformation on the improvements that have been achieved so far. I would like to thank my predecessors, my Ministers and my senior officials for all the work that has already been put into the development of the Home Office and into our new plans.
	I stress to the House the fact that we are not starting from year zero, and that we do not expect perfection at the end of the process. This is the start of a long-term programme for transforming the fundamental systems of the Home Office. All those involved—Ministers, directors and staff—know the extent of the challenge, and that this will not be accomplished overnight. However, we are committed to making early progress to demonstrate our seriousness to the public and to our stakeholders and staff. The fundamental change that we are seeking will require determination and, above all, endurance. This is the unglamorous hard work of delivering good government. That is now the task ahead, and I commend the plan to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for giving me advance sight of his statement, much of which we agree with. We wonder, however, why it has taken 10 years for some of these lessons to be learned. I was quite surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking—which I did not see in the original statement—to clear up in five years the backlog that the Home Office faces. Working on today's numbers, that implies that it will be deporting a net figure of 80,000 people a year, and I would be interested to hear the Home Secretary confirm that that is the case.
	In the past 12 weeks, we have witnessed a serial catastrophe in the Home Office, with daily disclosures of massive failures of policy. The issues have included the release of foreign prisoners, murderers on probation, sex-for-visas scandals, dangerous prisoners being put into open prisons, hundreds of thousands of failed asylum seekers, and massive numbers of illegal immigrants.
	This has been a spectacular serial failure of government, the like of which has not been seen in modern times in this country. Each and every failure that we have talked about in the past 12 weeks has serious implications for ordinary decent British citizens. At the very least, the Government have wasted hard-earned taxpayers' money and put excessive pressure on housing and public services. At worst, they have threatened public safety and even, in some cases, national security.
	We need to understand why that has happened—the wrong analysis of the problem will lead to the wrong conclusion. The Home Secretary puts it down to the end of the cold war, and with it the rise in asylum seekers and other threats. But that does not explain why Britain, which is further away from the failed states than any other European state—except Ireland—and which is an island and therefore harder to get into, with borders that are easier to control, has had the second highest number of asylum applicants in the world in the past five years.
	The reason is simple. The new Labour Government—I see that the previous Home Secretary but two is on the Treasury Bench—repealed Conservative laws allowing us to send people straight back to safe countries on the so-called white list. They terminated Conservative welfare arrangements designed to deter economic migrants, and failed to negotiate a continuation of the right to return asylum seekers to France. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is nodding. They later tried to reinstate some of those laws, but too late. In the following five years, more than a quarter of a million failed asylum seekers—failed asylum seekers, not real asylum seekers—tried to enter Britain, with almost 90,000 in one year alone. That, along with political decisions to increase net immigration by nearly 200,000 a year and not to strengthen our borders, is why the immigration and nationality directorate was overwhelmed.
	Of course there have been failures of management, but there have been much bigger failures of political leadership. The same is true elsewhere in the Home Office. We have seen the disaster over foreign prisoners, the debacle over putting dangerous prisoners in open prisons, and the catastrophe of murderers released after a 25-minute telephone call and going on to murder innocent people. All those came from the same cause—a political decision not to build enough prison places.
	The Government's own review showed that they needed 100,000 prison places by 2010. Even after the 8,000 new places that I understand the Home Secretary will announce tomorrow, they will still have less than 90,000 places by 2012. Again, there are failures of management, but in a system put under intolerable pressure by failures of political leadership. We could go on. We have a police force so overburdened with central targets and politically correct red tape that its detection rates dropped to an all-time low two years ago. As a result, violent crime is spiralling out of control, as we will no doubt hear tomorrow when the crime figures come out, putting extra pressure on the police, the courts, the prisons and the Home Office.
	Of course, Ministers themselves have put intolerable pressure on the Home Office. Since 1997 there have been more than 1,300 new regulations, many hundreds of initiatives and over 50 major Home Office Bills—more than the total number of Criminal Justice Bills in the previous century. Some of those Bills were useless—not in my opinion, but in the Government's. In the case of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, 110 of its provisions never came into force. Seventeen more were repealed before they could come into force, and another 39 were repealed after they came into force. That is by no means the only example; there are many others. Massive amounts of work were piled on to the Home Office, for no use whatever.
	This is not a Department that is impossible to run. Since 1997, as the Home Secretary mentioned in his statement, it has given up responsibility for 24 policy areas. It has less to do in straight policy terms than it had. Under the burdens of a target-driven, red tape-driven, bureaucratic, top-heavy approach pursued by this Government, however, its central staffing has doubled—and is it not revealing that the number of press officers has trebled ?
	It is true that some of the Home Secretary's proposals have merit. For example, the agency proposals for the IND—I think that I disagree with my ex-leader on this—may improve some aspects of its management. It may, however, make communication and co-operation with other parts of the Home Office more difficult, so none of these things come free. It will certainly not absolve Ministers of responsibility for effectiveness and delivery.
	The main issue is that the Home Office is a Department in severe crisis, as a direct result of Government policy. It is no hyperbole to say that the crisis is the biggest faced by a Department in modern times. The failures are multiple and massive, and will have a serious impact on the public. We all hope that the Home Secretary's measures succeed. Even if they do, however, they are unlikely to resolve problems of the size that his Department faces. And whatever they do, they will not allow him to sweep a political problem under a bureaucratic carpet.

John Reid: I shall try to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions—although I must say that he asked very few. I do not, however, begrudge him his entitlement to make a statement on the matter.
	On the clear-up rates, I think that his long division was based on the false premise that every case file equals a person. That is a wrong assumption on which to work. As I said earlier, some case files are duplicates, and some represent a decision that someone can stay here but we have not been able to get in touch with that person to tell them. In some cases, the person concerned may be dead, or may be from a state that has now become part of Europe. In some cases, the limited evidence that we have suggests that the person may have left of their own accord.
	I did say that we would aim to clear up the caseload legacy in five years—or, I hope, less time than that. That is because we have made significant progress since the right hon. Gentleman's party was in power. We no longer take 22 months to deal with a case; we deal with it in eight weeks— [Interruption.] I think that Opposition Members will accept that I am always ready to admit our inadequacies; they should not be so sensitive when I point out some of the inadequacies of the Conservative Government. The truth is that we have made massive progress in recent years to reform the asylum system. We have reduced applications by 72 per cent., and we have reduced the time taken to deal with them from 22 months to two months.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked why so many asylum applicants come to Britain. First, we have the English language. Secondly, we have had a more prosperous economy than anywhere else. Thirdly, his facts are wrong—in terms of asylum applications per thousand, the rate of application in this country is no greater than that in many European countries, and less than in some, including France. We should get our facts right. The truth is that there are inadequacies, and as I said earlier, one of the greatest is that the Home Office's fundamental systems were made for a different age. That created problems for everyone, including the last Home Secretary under the Conservative Government.
	It is just not fair to suggest that my predecessors did not have major achievements. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when he was Home Secretary, halved the time taken for persistent young offenders to be dealt with in the court system. He introduced a ban on handguns and the first race relations legislation in 25 years, and developed and introduced antisocial behaviour orders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) brought in a record number of police officers, and created community support officers, neighbourhood policing teams and the street robbery initiative that did so much to reduce crime. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) established the Serious Organised Crime Agency, dealt with 7/7 and its aftermath with great statesmanship, and achieved the tipping-point target whereby, for the first time in the past 20 years, we are deporting more failed asylum seekers than we are importing. It is a mixed balanced sheet, but to pretend that the previous Conservative Government achieved anything like what my three predecessors did is to fantasise about political history.

John Denham: My right hon. Friend's plans are certainly bold. One of the problems with the immigration and nationality directorate in recent years has been not that it has failed to meet its targets, but that it has met its targets and failed to deal with other problems, such as foreign prisoners, on which common sense requires action. Agencies are usually managed against targets. The great challenge to the Government and my right hon. Friend's proposals is to ensure that the new agency does not just deliver on a narrow set of targets laid down by Ministers, but deals with the whole problem.
	Does my right hon. Friend accept that at the core of his proposals is a belief that the slimmed-down centre of the Home Office will be able to offer a higher quality of leadership from officials, and—if I may say so—a less ministerial impatience and desire to intervene than we have perhaps been able to show in the past?

John Reid: The answers to my right hon. Friend's questions are yes, yes and yes, particularly on the last point. If we want to encourage a spirit and culture of acceptance of responsibility and accountability among officials, that will require us to tolerate a degree of risk-taking on the part of officials; and that will require a degree of self-denying ordinance when such risks result in something going wrong, as they inevitably will. Hopefully, however, those tactical mistakes will be to the benefit of an overall strategic change in the systems, giving us more effective and efficient management and output.
	The reason we want to do this is that, even after so many years in government, we should take upon ourselves the process of renewal of government, of Government Departments and of Government delivery—in a self-critical and, we hope, a constructive fashion, but also in a way that delivers from the centre what people want, rebalances our criminal justice system as people want it to be rebalanced, and provides a fair and effective system of managed migration that people can see to be both fair and effective. At the end of the day, we must show the public that we pay some attention to their concerns about government and governance.

Nicholas Clegg: I thank the Home Secretary for allowing advance sight of his statement.
	Given the suspense involved in awaiting this important blueprint for reform of the Home Office and given that the Home Secretary has been working on it for 18 hours a day, I must say that I am somewhat underwhelmed by what appears at first glance to be a hotch-potch of managerial doublespeak and wildly implausible targets. Some of it, of course, is welcome—we have been calling for the creation of a semi-independent agency from the immigration and nationality directorate for a long time, and we obviously welcome it now—but can the Home Secretary explain why he did not go further and look at models in other European countries and in north America, where the monopolistic functions of the Home Office are divided between a justice ministry dealing with judicial issues and a separate ministry dealing with police and security matters? That model works extremely well in large parts of the western world; perhaps the Home Secretary could reflect on it further.
	I was intrigued to learn that the end of the cold war is now held to be at least partly responsible for some of the woes in the Home Office, but I wonder why the unrelenting flow of headline-grabbing legislation from this Government—more than 50 Bills and more than 1,000 new offences in under a decade—was not mentioned in the statement. Surely the Home Secretary accepts that no Home Office, however structured or however reorganised, can work effectively as long as Ministers push it from pillar to post on the back of a volley of half-baked media gimmicks and legislative initiatives.
	I believe that the Home Secretary announced today a new contract between Ministers and civil servants. Will he confirm that his side of the bargain will be to guarantee that he will not announce any new initiatives at the behest of newspaper editors until he has discussed them in full with his civil servants?
	In the light of what is widely regarded as a bold if somewhat implausible claim that nearly half a million failed asylum seekers will be deported in less than five years, will the Home Secretary agree to look at the example of Canada, where a totally independent asylum agency has been created? Its functions are separate from the other functions of the immigration service, and it has proved spectacularly successful in dealing—free from political interference—with a highly sensitive area of public policy.

John Reid: I take it that when the hon. Gentleman spoke of the making of policy, he was referring to the protection of children. May I remind him gently that I was an Opposition spokesman on children 15 years before he entered the House? I spend considerable time thinking about these matters before I announce them.
	As for the implausibility or otherwise of the performance objectives, I think it best to make them public and to let people judge, according to the milestones that we are also making public, whether we achieve them. I thought that, as an adherent to the policy of open government and good delivery, the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. As for management practices, I cannot pretend to be a management expert. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is one, but I assure him that I have full confidence in my permanent secretary and the top leadership, and in the external management experts who advise them.
	The hon. Gentleman was a little churlish to diminish the efforts of many good people in the Home Office who have worked very hard for the past two months. They worked long hours, including weekends, to produce this as well as two other plans. The fact that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) was able to welcome many of the proposals is testimony to the good sense of those proposals.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of a monopolistic tendency in Departments. I should have expected him to welcome the fact that we are moving from the centre to the front line, talking about devolving accountability and responsibility, moving from centrally controlled to agency status and introducing contestability, which may result in a degree of privatisation in certain areas. What the hon. Gentleman said makes me wonder which document he has been reading. Nothing in this document moves towards monopoly; everything in it moves in the other direction. It may be the right or the wrong direction, but I should have thought that he would be able to discern the direction of travel.
	The hon. Gentleman cast aside, rather dismissively, any suggestion that the cold war could have had huge geopolitical consequences that caused problems for all Departments. I remind him that my first job in Government involved reconfiguring the whole of the British armed forces because of the changes brought about by the cold war. It has affected all our lives. The extension of Europe to the east, which the hon. Gentleman will have welcomed—eight more countries, and possibly another two, with all the migration that that involves—is a direct result of it. Those are not insignificant events. We ought to start facing up to the challenges that the new world presents to us, and that is what I am trying to do today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A good many Members are seeking to catch my eye. May I appeal for brisk questions, and perhaps for brisk answers from the Home Secretary?

Chris Mullin: As regards asylum, may I put it to my right hon. Friend that with all the talk of targets, tipping points and agencies, we are in danger of losing sight of the fact that we are dealing with human beings? Most people in this country are not as mean and nasty as most of our loathsome tabloids would have us believe. They do not want children who have lived in this country throughout their conscious lives sent back to destitution in countries such as the Congo, Angola and Sudan. May I therefore express the hope—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough to be going on with.

John Reid: My hon. Friend made some of those points recently in an Adjournment debate, the report of which I read with interest. I have a degree of sympathy with what he has said, but I hope that he understands that the aim of those of us who talk of providing a fair and effective system of managed migration is partly, at least, to ensure that when genuine cases such as those that he mentioned arise, everyone in society accepts that fair and genuine decisions have been made. The problem at the moment—with so many unknowns, so many illegal immigrants and a system that so many people feel is not fair and effective on the immigration side and not balanced in favour of the law-abiding majority on the criminal justice side—is that the legitimacy of taking decisions gets undermined, but that is the balance that we are trying to strike.

Michael Howard: Does the Home Secretary recognise that his proposals for transferring or transforming the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office into an agency will limit his ability to intervene as part of what he rightly described as carrying out the "unglamorous" business of good government if things continue to go wrong—if, for example, the fears expressed by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) about the effect of targets prove to be justified? Is that the Home Secretary's objective? Does he agree, given that he has described that part of the Home Office as not fit for purpose, that it would be better for him to continue to accept personal responsibility for its future performance rather than to offload it to an agency?

John Reid: There is no way that I would want to give up responsibility for an agency inside the Home Office, because the strategic direction, the policy decisions and so forth clearly lie with Ministers. I accept that the application of policy and operations cannot always be separated from policy decisions—there is no absolute differentiation between the two; there will be an overlap on occasions—and that some cases are strategically important, or perhaps in the national interest, so that a Minister has to intervene, but I nevertheless hope that by establishing the right regulatory and leadership framework and a greater degree of devolved responsibility to the agency, we will get a more effective output at the end of the day. That is, of course, a matter of discussion and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) have further points to make—they bring a great deal of experience to bear on the matter—I would be more than happy to reflect on them, as I do not regard the managerial aspect as a matter of party politics.

Gordon Prentice: Following that very point, I am interested in the new contract between Ministers and officials. When will it be put in place and will it be published? Where will ministerial responsibility end and the responsibility of officials begin?

John Reid: We have called it a renewed contract. My understanding, although I am not a constitutional historian, has always been that general responsibility for policy and strategic leadership lies with elected Members and Ministers, while responsibility for the detailed minutiae of operational work lies with officials—in the same way that advisers advise, but Ministers decide. It has at least been perceived and may have been the case in reality over recent years that Ministers can get involved in micro-managing operations to the detriment of the strategic whole. That is why we are trying to re-establish the relationship. As so often in other matters, the contract will be public, but this does not have the glamour of a contract signed by football players; it is an attempt to re-establish a balance in the relationship between Ministers and officials.

Douglas Hogg: I served in the Home Office for three years under my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Hurd, and the Department was then not unfit. If it is unfit now, that is the consequence of Ministers who have overloaded and abused the Department. If the Secretary of State looked into recent failings—most notably, oppressive legislation struck down by the courts, the unjustified merger of police forces, the chaotic Criminal Justice Act 2003 and failing immigration controls—he would see that they were all the direct responsibility of Ministers. In those circumstances, it is unworthy to poor-mouth officials and not to take ministerial responsibility.

John Reid: I would have thought that I had taken a great deal of ministerial responsibility. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a little unfair, but I hope that I am not being unfair when I say, first, that I did not say that the whole Department was unfit for purpose, but that certain fundamental systems in the Department were unfit for purpose. Secondly, if it was so fit for purpose when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was there, I wonder why crime doubled during that period. Thirdly, the suggestion that problems dealing with immigration, the number of illegal immigrants and the state of knowledge of data systems are afflictions that have been visited upon us only since we have had Labour Secretaries of State is not a true reflection of history.
	Some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessors know full well that there are difficult problems to cope with. Tracking people in, tracking people through and tracking people out has always been difficult. In a world in which the number of migrants has doubled and we have 90 million visitors and roughly 90 million people going out of the UK, it becomes very difficult. That is the problem that we are trying to resolve. If Mr. Speaker allows me, I shall have more to say about that in the next few days.

Sally Keeble: I very much welcome the reforms, especially the shift of resources to the front line, which is where my constituents want them to be. On the IND proposals, what will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that strict protocols are in place so that the system is secure, to cut out duplication and to ensure consistent decision making in what will be an arm's-length, decentralised agency?

John Reid: We can try to do that by simplifying the law. Much of the detail that my hon. Friend seeks I will, if I am allowed, elaborate on a future occasion. As I have said, my officials have been working very hard on two other sets of proposals: one is about rebalancing the criminal justice system and the other relates to the specifics of the IND. One thing that we certainly should do is listen carefully to what those with experience, either as constituency MPs or former Ministers, have to say. I think that I am correct in saying that in the past 24 hours my hon. Friend has met my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality to discuss the matter, and we are always willing to discuss it further.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement and I welcome some of its contents, not least the plans to transform the culture, skills, systems, processes and data of the Home Office. He will be aware of many recent criticisms, such as foreign prisoner release, the missing passports fiasco, and the imbalance between the location of immigration officers and ports at which so few, if any, people illegally entering the country are apprehended. Can he assure us that, in making the changes in the 55 paragraphs and 38 high-level bullet points at the back of the action plan, there will be no loss of front-line focus in those areas? In particular, will there be a continued focus on the direct relationship and linkage between the Home Office and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency over serious crime and drugs issues and the counter-terrorism role?

John Reid: Yes, I certainly hope that that will be the case. By definition, if we are identifying international contacts and dealing with organised crime on a pan-national scale, it would be completely contradictory if we were to lessen the co-ordination in the fight against crime among the countries of the United Kingdom.

Karen Buck: In supporting the broad thrust of my right hon. Friend's proposals, may I gently remind him that, as those of us who have had extensive experience of the Child Support Agency know only too well, arm's-length agencies are not of themselves necessarily a solution? What steps will he take to ensure that the combination of challenging targets and a head-count reduction do not lead to the sort of collapse of morale that occurred in the Child Support Agency? That has many implications not just for the effective management of the system, but for meeting the needs of vulnerable individuals within it and, of course, for community relations, particularly in multiracial communities such as those in my constituency.

John Reid: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not go into the details of the immigration and nationality directorate reforms at this stage, because I hope to report back to the House with further detail shortly, as I have said. At that stage, I hope that she will be satisfied that we have achieved the right balance in respect of general accountability, regulation, objectivity, advice and autonomy of leadership. I agree with her that, on its own, agency status will not solve all the problems. I do not believe that an organisation's being in the private sector or the public sector necessarily makes it good or bad. Similarly, being an integral part of a Department or an executive agency is not necessarily all good or bad. However, I believe that what we are suggesting will provide a good degree of freedom for top management, in whom I have confidence, to take on the responsibility to lead and, in the midst of all the pressures on immigration from all sides, to sustain objectives. The maintenance of objectives is the first rule of achieving them.

Jacqui Lait: I would be most grateful to the Home Secretary if he would accept from me that my immigration case load has gone up from 50 to 80 per cent. of the total in recent years and that that is primarily to do with the inordinate length of time that the Home Office takes to make decisions. What assurances can he give that, while the changes take place in the IND, a primary management objective will be to ensure that no further delays occur in my constituents' cases—or should I write to them to suggest that they must wait even longer?

John Reid: I certainly hope not. I assure the hon. Lady that the issue is very high in all our priorities. She is absolutely right to suggest that unacceptable delays, which run through from answering questions from Members of Parliament to dealing with immigration cases, are not only inconvenient for the individuals involved but highly deleterious eventually if anyone wants to deport those individuals. The longer that they stay here, the more that they have a case under article 8 of the European convention on human rights about the disturbance to their family life, as they have become settled. So there are all sorts of reasons why we ought to do such things far more swiftly.

Paul Flynn: I welcome the statement, particularly as it contains no reference to the over-ambitious identity card scheme. I remind the Home Secretary that for the past nine months police forces in this country have not been, in his phrase, sharply focused on their core purpose of catching criminals, because they have had to put up with the massive distraction of police reorganisation. Can he assure me that police forces such as my own in Gwent, which put a great deal of effort and resources into preparing for reorganisation, will be compensated for the money that they have wasted?

John Reid: I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend on a number of fronts. I hope that he is pleased that we have decided to abandon an approach by diktat and to try to fill the gap, which everyone thinks is there in the protective services, by discussion, dialogue, collaboration and partnership and, where possible, by strategic mergers. I hope that that will be done, and most people would think that, on balance, it is a far better way of doing it. That has certainly been the reception that we have had. I am sorry to disappoint him, however, about ID cards: the more that I see of the problems that we face in counter-terrorism, fraud and organised crime, the more that I become convinced that we made the right decision on ID cards, and I therefore reaffirm our commitment to them.

Gary Streeter: I support the Home Secretary's firm intention to shift resources over time from headquarters to front-line services—I wish him well with that—but will he look urgently at the resources behind border controls? Certainly in Plymouth and at other ports of entry, there is a very real fear that many people, perhaps undesirable, and many undesirable substances are coming into the country with not a sign of a border guard or a Customs official to detect or deter them. Will that be looked at very urgently in his great new Home Office?

John Reid: I note what the hon. Gentleman says—most of our exercises in that respect are intelligence-led—but he may find it of interest to be here when we discuss in further detail some of the plans for the IND and wider, associated issues, if Mr. Speaker allows us to do so in the near future.

Michael Wills: Can my right hon. Friend give any assurance at this stage that hon. Members will continue to have access to Ministers on behalf of constituents who are involved in particularly difficult immigration and asylum cases?

John Reid: Certainly I and the Ministers associated with me have always tried to make time available to hon. Members who want to speak to us on any matter. However, we all accept that a system whereby there is routine reopening and re-examination of every decision that is taken by the IND adds very little to its fairness but hugely to its inefficiency. So we must try to get that balance right. Again, we will return to that subject when we discuss the matter in the near future, I hope.

Richard Benyon: May I ask the Home Secretary a question on ministerial accountability? On Monday, I asked the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality a question about the sex for visas issue, which strikes right at the heart of the problems at the IND. I am afraid that I got a reply that showed that the Minister simply does not understand the issue and that the people concerned—the victim and her solicitors—have not been kept informed. That is an issue of fundamental importance to the integrity of the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the directorate. Will he look at a letter that I have written to him today, follow that case through and assure the victim of that incident and me that her concerns are being met?

John Reid: Yes. I will not refer to that incident, because I think that I am correct in saying that criminal investigations are still going on in that case. That is partly why my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality was reticent. Investigations are certainly going on in one or two of the cases. Therefore, we must be rather careful about what we say about them, but the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that it is entirely unacceptable that such things go on. When they are discovered—we have strengthened our fraud investigations internally—people ought to be investigated and, where appropriate, disciplined and, again where appropriate, criminal charges should be brought, and they are being brought in some of those cases.
	However, we are rather reticent to discuss cases openly for two reasons: first, if judicial proceedings are going on; and secondly, although we can try to ensure that such people are discovered and penalised, the intervention in individual and specific cases that involve members of staff is normally better left to the permanent secretary and others who manage the staff side. That is partly intended to maintain the integrity of the relationship between Ministers and officials. However, I fully accept the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about keeping the victim of that incident informed. If he would like to see me and my colleagues afterwards, I will see how we can do that in a way that is commensurate with not intervening in any judicial proceedings.

Bob Blizzard: While my right hon. Friend is reforming his Department, can we give some thought and appreciation to the people on the ground who are fighting crime, particularly crime reduction officers and community support officers? Will he join me in congratulating Crime Reduction Officer Steve Barrett in my constituency on coming up with the simple idea of producing a key fob with the picture of the community support officer on it, so that local people can recognise their CSO, and with the contact details on the back? That is a very effective way of helping community policing to work. Will he encourage other police forces to take up that simple idea?

John Reid: Yes, indeed. I congratulate the local neighbourhood policing team and the gentleman in question on that. I have not thought of doing something similar for the Home Secretary; it might not be as warmly received throughout the nation.

Richard Spring: The Home Secretary will be aware that most members of the public have contact with the Home Office through their local police. In his statement, he talked about simplifying the procedures for the police and improving front-line services. In view of those comments, would he like to take this opportunity today to rule out clearly, unequivocally and without hesitation any prospect of those wholly unwelcome police mergers?

John Reid: I have already made my position known on that. In fact, I told the Police Federation within a week of coming into the post, I told the Association of Chief Police Officers a week later and I have told the House several times that I do not intend to force people to merge. The legislative, parliamentary and local support and the community, judicial, financial and fiscal problems of doing so were sufficient to deter even a Glaswegian from going in there, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that the status quo is not acceptable and that some protective services need to be provided, and that therefore either through collaboration, partnership or some sort of voluntary merger, we should try to do so. That is what I have asked the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety to do. I hope that we never have to return to do that by diktat, because that is not the route that I prefer, and I have ruled it out certainly for the foreseeable future.

John Robertson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and what he is trying to achieve. May I direct his attention to the asylum seekers in my constituency, who have been there for at least five years? Their children have gone through primary school and are heading to secondary school. Adding another five years will mean that those children will be more British than from the country of their parents' origin. Will he ensure that they are looked after?

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The longer it takes us to deal with cases, the more likely it is that the scenario that he outlined will occur. Then, of course, however fair or unfair the original entry into this country was, it becomes difficult to ask people to leave, not least because it is in contravention of article 8 of the European convention on human rights on settled family life. That is precisely why, if we are to have a fair system, it needs to be a speedy and efficient system. I certainly aim to ensure that that is the case so that we move from a vicious circle to a virtuous circle. That will not happen quickly and it will require great endurance. I hope to go into the detail in a few days' time.

John Hemming: The creation of an agency is like moving around the deckchairs on the Titanic, rather than keeping an eye open for icebergs. One of the icebergs is hospital orders. Does the Home Secretary agree that we need to consider how offenders are handled if they are given hospital orders and how the National Offender Management Service deals with people at the end of such orders?

John Reid: Yes. Quite separately from what I am telling the House today, a written ministerial statement has been issued by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, which addresses several issues regarding foreign national prisoners and associated areas. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I would point out that while we will have another opportunity to discuss the immigration and nationality directorate, we have hugely reduced the number of asylum seekers and hugely speeded up the process of dealing with them. For the first time in our history, we are deporting more false asylum claimants than we believe are coming into the country. That is what is allowing us to tackle the inherited legacy of cases. We are slowly winning the battle, but I hope that people recognise that—apart from the IND—the document published today about the transformation of the Home Office is very significant and will be challenging for the permanent secretary and everyone involved. I hope that we will all give them a great deal of support as they try to transform this old, important and venerable Department of State into one that is fit for purpose in every conceivable direction.

James Clappison: Notwithstanding the connection that the Home Secretary has drawn between the ending of the cold war and mass migration, the statistical fact is that there was a sharp and significant increase in net migration into this country after 1997, in no small measure as a result of Government policy. Will the Home Secretary reflect on the estimate given by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on housing demand, namely, that up to 2026 around a third of net household formation—65,000 additional households a year—will be attributable to immigration?

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman needs to remember that apart from mass migration being easier because of the porous nature of borders, failed states and the push factor of civil wars, there was also a magnet effect in this country after 1997. The economic development and the employment opportunities provided by 2.5 million extra jobs, which had not—in fairness—existed under the previous Administration, pulled people in. That is why it became an even greater challenge. The reduction of 72 per cent. in the number of asylum applicants, the speed with which they are dealt with, and the tackling of the inherited legacy—which goes way back to the early 1990s—are all stages on a journey that has had measured success. However, we now need to redouble our efforts and transform the whole of the system.

Richard Bacon: On 31 January, the Home Office presented a set of accounts to Parliament that was unaudited. I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that that is not only unacceptable, but disgraceful. Can he give a guarantee that that will not happen next year and that Sir David Normington will have the top team support that he needs to ensure that it does not happen? Who will do the external audit of progress that will be conducted in December?

John Reid: Yes, it is entirely unsatisfactory that the accounts should be in that state, and that is why I included them among the difficulties in my statement. However, I cannot guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that things will go as swiftly and as orderly as I would like with the next set of accounts, because the difficulties were not remedied until halfway through the financial year that has yet to be approved. That might be a qualification. I can assure him that Sir David is well on top of the issue and has been at the centre of all the work of the past few weeks. He will have all of the assistance that he requires. I cannot guarantee, however, that there will be no problems.

Justine Greening: On the issue of indefinite leave to remain, rather than asylum, can the Home Secretary tell us how many outstanding cases there are and the time taken to process those applications? How will his reforms impact on that waiting time? Many of my constituents wait five, six or seven years to get through the process and have still not reached the end by the time they come to see me. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary could give some opening statistics on where we are today.

John Reid: If I could get reliable statistics of that nature, it would be very helpful. One reason why we are carrying out a fundamental overhaul of our systems, including our information systems, is that such information is not easily to hand—and when it has been in the past, it has proved unreliable. I accept that verifiable databases and information systems are a fundamental part of any modern organisation that is trying to tackle such problems. I invite the hon. Lady to take part in our longer discussions when I make a statement—if I am allowed to do so—on the transformation of the immigration and nationality directorate. Everyone gets a second bite of the cherry under a new Labour Government.

Henry Bellingham: On Monday, I asked a junior Minister if he could tell the House the exact number of failed asylum seekers awaiting deportation. He could not give me that number. Surely, if someone fails their asylum application appeal, a record must be kept somewhere. How can the Home Secretary have any confidence in his ability to sort out the asylum system unless he has that vital information to hand?

John Reid: I thought that I had covered that point honestly in my statement. I gave the House the number of cases—or files—but I pointed out the complications of that number, in that some files are duplicates; some are in error; some may not have been asylum seekers, but people whose stay here had been approved and who had not been contacted yet; some may have left of their own volition; some may now be here legitimately because they came from states that have subsequently become part of the European Union; and some may even have died. For all those reasons, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact figure. I have a quote from the last Conservative Home Secretary, who said:
	"By its very nature, illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates"—
	 [ Interruption. ] Well, illegal immigration and failed asylum seekers who have disappeared like illegal immigrants and are trying to evade the authorities bear a striking similarity in terms of how difficult it is to calculate their number —[ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman should listen to the answer that he sought from me, which is that we can give the estimate that the National Audit Office produced last year of up to 283,000, to which we should add dependants. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an accurate figure, but nor could the last Tory Home Secretary.

Points of Order

Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, there have been exchanges between hon. Members and Mr. Speaker about parliamentary answers. On 10 July, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he had made of the frequency, scale and sophistication of Taliban attacks on British forces in Helmand province. In reply, I was told what we knew already—that attacks had increased with the deployment of British troops in the south of Afghanistan. However, the end of the right hon. Gentleman's answer was extraordinary. He said that neither the Taliban nor the range of illegally armed groups currently posed a threat to the long-term stability of Afghanistan. That is exactly the opposite of what the House has been told over recent months. This country has deployed troops to Operation Enduring Freedom and to the NATO mission precisely to secure the long-term stability of Afghanistan. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ask Mr. Speaker to use his good offices to ask the right hon. Gentleman to come to the House and explain what he meant by that answer, which hon. Members will find as perplexing as it is disturbing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker has no direct responsibility for the quality of ministerial replies to questions. If he consults the Table Office, I am sure that staff there will be able to assist him in following up answers that he regards as inadequate. I am sure that Mr. Speaker will have noted again the points that the hon. Gentleman has made today, as they will be on the record.

James Duddridge: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During questions to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister this morning, I asked a question about casinos. In his reply, the Deputy Prime Minister accused me of receiving money from casinos via my Conservative association. That is wholly and totally untrue; it is a very concerning accusation that has no substance. What advice can you give about how I can place it on record that the accusation is untrue? Does Mr. Speaker have the power to call the right hon. Gentleman back to the House of Commons to set the record straight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that accusations of any kind, from any side of the House, should be thought through very carefully before they are made. They should not be made as often as they are, but the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in putting the matter on the record.

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On 28 June, I asked the Prime Minister a question about infant class sizes. I put it to him that he had not met the pledge on that subject that he made before the 1997 election. He said:
	"As far as I am aware, the infant class pledge has been met."—[ Official Report, 28 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 259.]
	Yet Government figures reveal that nearly 30,000 children are being taught in infant classes with more than 30 children. I have written to the Prime Minister telling him that he inadvertently misled the House, but he has not replied. What further steps can I take to oblige him to correct the record, as this is a serious breach of his responsibilities to this House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I trust that the Prime Minister will reply in due course, and that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the answer. When figures such as those are bandied about, they are often less a matter of record than of debate.

David Gauke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Through you, may I thank Mr. Speaker for an intervention that he made in respect of a parliamentary question that I tabled on 25 May? I finally received a response yesterday. The question asked how many questions tabled to the Home Office before 5 May had remained unanswered by 25 May, and yesterday's answer put the number at 565.
	This is a hugely important matter, and I am grateful for Mr. Speaker's intervention. I understand that the Home Secretary has said that the problem will be resolved by 9 October and that questions will be answered appropriately. However, parliamentary questions are very important to Back-Bench Members who want to put the Government under scrutiny. Will you urge the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that he fulfils his pledge?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The whole matter of questions to Ministers and their answers is clearly extremely important. The House is already aware of Mr. Speaker's interest in the matter, and the hon. Gentleman has placed his concerns clearly on the record.

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have either you or Mr. Speaker been approached by the Ministry of Defence with a request to allow a Minister to give an oral statement to the House about troop deployment to Iraq? I discovered from a written statement yesterday that my local regiment, the Black Watch, was being asked to undertake an unprecedented third tour of duty in Iraq that does not comply the 24-month period that should elapse between deployments. Given that the deployment is so contentious, should not a Minister come to the House to be questioned by hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is a debate on these matters tomorrow. I trust that that will allow the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to raise the points that he is now raising with me.

Mark Harper: Further to the point of order raised yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) about supplying water to visitors to the House, a delegation of more than 600 of my constituents had to stand outside the House in tremendous temperatures. I hope that you are able to convey to Mr. Speaker my gratitude for his kindness and thoughtfulness in ordering the Serjeant at Arms Department to make water available to those visitors.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that Mr. Speaker will read with interest the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Samurai Swords

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to forbid the sale, manufacture, hire, loan or importation of sharpened samurai swords; and for connected purposes.
	The recent knife amnesty has reminded us of just how many knives and other bladed weapons are in circulation in our communities. Nearly 90,000 weapons were handed in to police and, in virtually every local or regional news story that I have read, samurai swords are mentioned as having been deposited at police stations during the amnesty. It is a sad fact that there is an increasing number of these lethal weapons out on our streets, and ease of supply is a significant factor.
	Too many families and communities have suffered the appalling consequences arising from the use of samurai swords. In my own area in and around Hornchurch, we have seen at least three serious incidents. In one, a man's hand was severed, and another involved a serious assault. In the third incident, mothers and toddlers were forced to flee a children's play site when someone started wielding a sword in the area where the youngsters were playing.
	I wish that I could say that those were isolated incidents. However, from a brief examination of some of the reported attacks that have taken place this year alone, it is clear to me that samurai swords are being used increasingly in violent crime up and down the country. The following extracts from stories in the past few months give some feel of the nature of the incidents involving the use of samurai swords:
	"Two gang members have been found guilty of murdering a builder with a samurai sword at a pub in Newport".
	"Police in County Durham have released the name of a woman who died after she was stabbed with a samurai sword and then run over by a car".
	"A teenage thug who nearly killed a man when he sliced through his chest with a samurai sword is facing years in jail. The victim's heart stopped twice on the operating table as surgeons battled to save his life".
	"A robber who threatened to behead a hotel porter with a samurai sword has been jailed for seven years".
	"A twenty six year old man has appeared in court charged with the murder of a man who was stabbed with a samurai sword in Corby."
	Those are just a few examples, but each case highlights the tragic consequences when these weapons are used. I have little doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to provide many other examples.
	There is also a disturbing link between samurai swords and gang culture. It has been suggested by some that obtaining a samurai sword is almost becoming a rite of passage for criminal gang members. The recent pictures in the national press of 15-year-old Alex Mulumba—thought to be a member of the south London gang "Man Dem Crew"—lying in his hospital bed with a ventilator tube protruding from his mouth after sustaining a single fatal stab wound from a samurai sword say a great deal about the impact that those weapons are having on the streets. A report in the  Daily Mirror from last December summarizes the position well. It said:
	"Police in Plymouth are reporting once incident involving a samurai sword every week. In Middlesbrough they are the 'most attractive weapon' for thugs ahead of guns and knives. A senior Home Office source said, 'They are now the weapon of choice amongst many organised criminals'."
	Yet buying one of those potentially lethal implements could not be easier. People can buy them in shops, in markets, on the internet and even in car boot sales. As one commentator said:
	"It's as easy as purchasing a lotto ticket."
	Police and trading standards officers are absolutely powerless to do anything about that. Although it is an offence to have a samurai sword in a public place without good reason or lawful authority, it is entirely within the law to sell an item with a blade or point—including a samurai sword—to someone over the age of 16. That seems ludicrous to me, and the consequences of having these dangerous swords out on the streets in criminal hands is increasingly plain to see.
	I have become convinced that the availability and supply of these items is a significant factor. A campaign last autumn by Devon and Cornwall police calling on shops to stop selling samurai swords had a clear impact. Instead of averaging one samurai sword incident a week, the force reported only a single incident during its three-month campaign. The time has come to ensure that that approach is taken across the country and that it is given statutory force through legislation.
	That said, it is important to recognise that many people use or possess samurai swords lawfully and without causing harm to anyone else. The sports of kendo and aikido specifically call for the use of Japanese swords. The original Japanese katana is the sword that is most commonly referred to as a samurai sword, and those traditional items, forged with the highly specialized tamagahane steel, are highly valuable and important cultural and historic items, some of which are considered works of fine art. It is possible to frame legislation in such a way that sales of samurai swords to museums, heritage bodies, martial arts groups, theatre and drama companies and other lawful groups can be protected, while banning the sale of dangerous weapons for criminal use.
	The reference to "sharpened samurai swords" in the text of my proposed Bill is intended to reflect that approach, as a number of samurai swords imported into the UK are made from an aluminium composite that cannot be sharpened to have a cutting edge and therefore would not be capable of being used for the sorts of attacks that I have highlighted.
	If action is required, which I believe it is, the only realistic alternative to prohibiting the sale and importation of samurai swords is some form of licensing scheme. I am persuaded that a general scheme would be costly and bureaucratic and would not reduce the flow of these items into criminal hands. However, licensing of certain groups or organisations may assist the framing of the exemptions that I have highlighted, and I will certainly reflect on that in the drafting of the Bill, should I be granted leave by the House today. The Home Office has said for a long time that it is considering a ban on samurai swords—that was said most recently by the current Home Secretary on 19 June—but we have yet to see a firm commitment actually to introduce legislation to that effect. Although powers are being reserved, it remains uncertain whether those powers will be used. It is for that reason that I seek leave to introduce this Bill.
	There is a clear and increasingly worrying link between gang culture, violent crime and the use of these dangerous implements. Reducing the ease with which such swords are supplied would have a direct impact on taking these potentially deadly weapons off our streets. A ban on the sale, import and manufacture of such items—with appropriate exemptions—is the only practical way of giving effect to my intent. The time to act is now. I hope that the House will take this opportunity to introduce a law that will significantly restrict the sale of these potentially deadly items, and in so doing reduce the number of serious attacks in which samurai swords are used.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by James Brokenshire, Mike Penning, Mr. Lee Scott, Angela Watkinson, Mr. David Jones, Mr. Shailesh Vara, Jeremy Wright, Andrew Rosindell, James Duddridge, Mark Pritchard, Martin Horwood and Mr. David Amess.

Samurai Swords

James Brokenshire accordingly presented a Bill to forbid the sale, manufacture, hire, loan or importation of sharpened samurai swords; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 217].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[Un-allotted day]

Home Information Packs

Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise Members that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Michael Gove: I beg to move,
	That this House expresses profound concern at the lack of adequate preparation made for the introduction of the Government's Home Information Packs (HIPs); is further concerned at the failure on the part of the Government to provide a substantive pilot scheme; acknowledges the misgivings of various professional organisations; registers grave concern about the failure of HIPs to include reliable information on electrical safety, flood risk and contaminated land; fears that the cost of providing a HIP could be as high as £1,000; asserts that valuations and surveys will still be required, particularly for first-time buyers, increasing the cost of buying and selling a home; and notes that independent economic experts have warned of a negative impact on the economy arising from the introduction of HIPs.
	May I say how pleased I am that the Minister for Housing and Planning is still in her place, because this debate gives me an opportunity to congratulate her on grasping the nettle, which her predecessors avoided, of signalling the death of home information packs? For let us be in no doubt that the announcement that she made yesterday—with becoming modesty, by way of a written statement—was an obituary to the Government's plans to tie up the housing market in red tape. The Minister has come to the House today not to praise HIPs, as she may have anticipated a week ago, but to bury them.

Jim Devine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making reference to last week, because a week last Sunday I read in my newspapers that the major issue for the Opposition was English votes for English Members. I cleared my diary and prepared my speech in defence of the Union. I wanted to ensure that there would be no second-class MPs. What happened?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The topic under consideration in this debate is home information packs.

Michael Gove: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am always delighted to hear from a fellow Scot in such debates, and I look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman might wish to say about the subject that is actually being discussed this afternoon.
	Despite the Minister's many skills at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, she will not be able to disguise that the central part of HIPs—the keystone around which everything else was constructed—has been demolished. Her decision yesterday to make home condition reports a purely voluntary part of HIPs means that they are now, in effect, a dead letter. After all, who in their right mind will voluntarily wish to pay hundreds of pounds extra for a home condition report, with all its current defects, simply to market their property, when they can go ahead without one? Making the preparation of a home condition report voluntary is like making payment of council tax voluntary—something the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister knows all about. If a Government-mandated levy is no longer obligatory, why should people pay?

Phil Woolas: For the benefit of the House, I should point out that council tax collection rates are at their highest ever level.

Michael Gove: I am delighted to acknowledge that, thanks to the wonderful campaign conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the Deputy Prime Minister has at last succeeded in paying his council tax, no doubt contributing to the increased collection rates in Conservative-run Westminster council.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that the motion under debate is home information packs—not council tax, nor anything else.

Michael Gove: Thank you very much for your welcome intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker; it allows me, despite the temptation offered by the Minister for Local Government, to get back on course.
	I am naturally delighted that the Minister for Housing and Planning, in making yesterday's announcement, accepted the force of Conservative arguments, because we have consistently highlighted the scheme's weakness and invited her to climb down. I am particularly delighted that she has appreciated the importance of economic stability and the vital role that a stable housing market plays in ensuring such stability.  [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh—perhaps they take a cavalier approach to economic stability—but we Conservatives put it at the heart of economic policy. That is why we welcomed the independent report by the lenders GMAC-RFC, which showed precisely what consequences the introduction of home information packs might have for the housing market and broader economic stability.

Emily Thornberry: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is a fan of free markets, given his background in the Policy Exchange and his being a Tory, and all. So I am sure that he is aware that free markets can be fair only if everyone has the same information. Is his opposition to the Government's plans merely based on keeping information in the hands of the rich, rather than making it available to all?

Michael Gove: That was a beautifully read intervention. As a believer in free markets, I welcome precisely what the Government have done, which is to replace something that would have been compulsory—an intervention and a regulatory clogging of the market—with a voluntary proposal that allows the market to continue to function well.
	As I was pointing out, we Conservatives welcomed the report by independent lenders GMAC-RFC, which pointed out that, unfortunately, the introduction of home information packs could—if the Government had gone ahead with them—have had profoundly destabilising effects on the housing market. That report took the Government's own projections of the likely effect of home information packs—a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of properties for sale—and fed the figures through the Treasury model. The report showed that, as a result of pressing ahead, there would have been a deleterious effect not just on economic stability, but on gross domestic product and unemployment.  [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) laughs, but the silence from the Treasury at that point was notable. It did not utter any criticism, as it so often does when independent economic reports and forecasts are made, of that report. Indeed, shortly after it was published, the Treasury made its feelings known and, sure enough, the Minister for Housing and Planning, who keeps in close touch with Treasury thinking, ensured that it was taken proper heed of and that a voluntary scheme was introduced.

Tony Baldry: Was not the sad reading from the Whip's brief that we heard earlier evidence of the Government's considerable embarrassment at having got the worst of all possible worlds? My hon. Friend is being far too kind to the Minister —[Interruption.]

Emily Thornberry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not reading from the Whip's brief, but from my own fair hand. I have many notes and pieces of paper here—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point of debate and the answer is now on the record.

Tony Baldry: Does not the hypersensitivity of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) at my pointing out her reading from the Whip's brief demonstrate that the Government are greatly embarrassed? As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is being far too kind to the Minister, and we are ending up with the worst of all possible worlds. The chief executive of the Association of Home Information Pack Providers says that the energy performance certificates will cost £200 each, which is a ludicrous price for people to have to pay when moving home, on top of everything else. My hon. Friend is being far too gallant today in his comments to the Minister.

Michael Gove: I am flattered by the generous words of my hon. Friend; it has always been my intention to forge a consensus, wherever possible. Under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), we have said that, when the Government do the right thing, we will agree with them. Belatedly, the Minister has done the right thing, so it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that.

John Hayes: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; his perspicacity and astuteness has led to the Government changing their mind. It is not as if we did not warn them. When this matter was debated in Committee during the passage of the Housing Act 2004, we told them that home information packs would be a disaster, because they would end first-day marketing, add costs to the system and put pressure on those already facing difficulties in selling or buying. We also pointed out that they would not get enough inspectors. All those things have come true. Why did the Government not recognise that then, and why have they pursued this policy with such vigour ever since?

Michael Gove: I thank my hon. Friend very much for his intervention and he is quite right. He and my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Poole (Mr. Syms) exhibited rare prescience during the passage of the Housing Bill, pointing out precisely the dangers that the Government have only now recognised. The question that we have to ask is why it has taken the Government two years and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to realise the folly that was clearly pointed out to them by my colleagues.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Michael Gove: What an embarrassment of choices! I give way to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas).

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am listening carefully to what he has to say. Is he aware—I speak as a former domestic conveyancing solicitor—that there is profound concern at the huge costs involved for consumers, about whom I know he is very concerned, in proceeding to purchases that inevitably fail because of vendors' failure to disclose? Is it not right that we should try to improve what is a defective conveyancing system?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I am grateful to him for declaring his interest. We should certainly seek to improve the conveyancing system, but nothing in the Government's proposals would have done so. It was clear, particularly from the comments of smaller solicitors directly involved in conveyancing, that by proceeding as the Government planned to do before yesterday's written statement, specialist conveyancing solicitors would have lost out. Family firms that provide diversity and competition would have been swallowed up by a move toward conglomerates, which would have provided a poorer and shoddier service.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Michael Gove: Now, the embarrassment of choices is slightly smaller. I give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster).

Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he is looking for consensus, can we decide what we do agree about? Does he believe that energy performance certificates are an important element, or does he oppose them, as well?

Michael Gove: I agree that energy performance certificates are very important; indeed, we—like, I think, every party in this House—are happy to see the EU directive in question implemented. But I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that his own Government have specified that people do not need home information packs in order to comply with that directive. The Northern Ireland Office made that perfectly clear in 2004 and 2006, and I am sorry that the briefing supplied by the Government did not enlighten him on that fact.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Michael Gove: Now, I give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).

Clive Betts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He believed last week that vendors, when selling their property, ought to provide information on electrical safety, flood risk and contaminated land. Does he still believe that they should provide that information up front when selling a property, and does he still believe—as he also did last week—that, in order to ascertain the precise effect on the markets of the move to home information packs, there should be a paid-for, dry-run pilot scheme in certain parts of the country?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman has gifts of clairvoyance or second sight even greater than those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there was no debate last week on this issue, so there was no opportunity for me to make my views clear. He very helpfully makes a point that we have been trying to make—that the home condition reports that the Government were going to introduce would not have enlightened people as to flood risk, contamination or the threat of radon gas in properties that they might have purchased. As a result, clearly deficient information would have been provided.
	The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said earlier that, in order to operate effectively, markets have to give people adequate or appropriate information. The home condition reports simply would not have done that, as the Council of Mortgage Lenders pointed out. As the Prime Minister made clear at the Dispatch Box not two hours ago, that was one of the reasons why the Minister had to execute the U-turn that she did.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Michael Gove: I am delighted to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).

Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being most generous. This knockabout is all very well, but will he address the plight of home inspectors? Some 232 have qualified so far, having paid about £7,000 to do the course, and many more are in training. What are they going to do? Are they going to be left to hang out to dry as a result of this Government's further U-turn?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically acute point. One question that we must ask is, what is going to happen to all those people who were encouraged to invest up to £8,000 of their personal fortunes in training for a scheme that will not now be implemented? They have all been marched up to the top of the hill, only to be marched down. In contemplating the Deputy Prime Minister's translation to the upper House, it is a great pity to note that the title of grand old Duke of York has already been taken. His position on this issue fits him adequately for that title.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Michael Gove: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson).

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I wonder whether hope is in sight for inspectors who are partly trained or hoping to train. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the conclusion of yesterday's statement says:
	"Mandatory HCRs will remain on the table if the industry fails to make a success of the roll out of HCRs."—[ Official Report, 18 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 13WS.]

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a good point in saying that the Government are attempting to cover their nakedness in their retreat by saying that they retain the right to introduce mandatory home condition reports. One of the questions we all have to ask is, given how few people trained as home inspectors and given how the Government have already reneged on the deal that they implicitly entered into with those people who did train, who now would be foolish enough to invest £8,000 to become a home inspector? I think it extremely unlikely that we will see any return of mandatory home condition reports.

Andrew Murrison: Does my hon. Friend have a sense of déjà vu? Only a little while ago we had the home computer initiative, which seemed to encourage people to invest in their own training, only for them to find the Government pulling the rug from under them. To me, those inspectors seem to be in exactly the same position.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and might well have pointed out the scandal of the Government's U-turn on self-invested personal pensions, where they encouraged people to make a series of investments only suddenly to pull the rug from underneath them. One of the key things that makes markets work is stability and certainty. One of the key aspects of the way in which the Government have operated has been their encouraging people to make investments then changing the rules so that those investments trickle into the sand. For a Government who seem to be committed to prudence, they are remarkably improvident with other people's money.

Emily Thornberry: For certainty, could you help me? We are obviously slightly slow on this side of the House, but are you in favour of energy performance certificates, or are you not? If you could just say yes or no—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Lady of the convention of the House that means that "you" is the occupant of the Chair. I do not declare what I am in favour of.

Emily Thornberry: Would the hon. Gentleman enlighten those of us on the Labour Benches on whether he is in favour of energy performance certificates? Would the hon. Gentleman help us by simply saying yes or no? [Hon. Members: "He has."] He seems to have said yes and no today, so might he give us one definitive answer? Is it yes, he is in favour of them, or is it no, he is not? We would really appreciate an answer.

Michael Gove: I am always grateful to hear from the hon. Lady, who gives me the opportunity to repeat the point that I made to her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster). I absolutely believe that we should comply with the EU directive, as I mentioned in response to her hon. Friend. The Government—her Government—have made it clear that we do not need home information packs in order to comply with that directive. They have made that clear in Northern Ireland, and what is sauce for the Ulster goose should be sauce for the rest of the UK gander.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his sustained comments on this matter and on making the Government make a U-turn in their statement yesterday. Is he aware that the gestation of this issue lies as far back as the Labour party manifesto of 1997? Since then, they have had three general elections and two Bills in Committee, and numerous eminent bodies have told them their proposal would not work. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government need to become slightly quicker learners?

Michael Gove: I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I pay tribute to him for being one of the most dogged and persistent interrogators of the Government in this regard. It is thanks to the questions that he has asked and the speeches that he has made that the Government have been forced to conclude where they have.

Chris Bryant: indicated dissent.

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman tries to make a sedentary intervention. If he would like to rise and make an argument, I should be more than happy to counter it. If not, I suggest he listens and learns.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) offered a stricture on my concern for the Minister for Housing and Planning. However, I sympathise with her. She, as much as any of us, is a victim of the serial incompetence of the late Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In 2004, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), argued that home information packs would end a shambolic home-buying and selling process. The right hon. Gentleman is now parliamentary private secretary to the Prime Minister, so he is well qualified to talk about shambolic home-buying and selling processes.
	During the passage of the Act that brought the packs into force, when the right hon. Member for Streatham held the post of Minister for Housing and Planning, the case for making the packs voluntary—the case that the present Minister has now accepted— was made forcibly and eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings, for Poole and for Cotswold. As we have heard, that was all to no avail. The Minister heard the arguments; she was on the Committee. But she was honour-bound to follow where the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) led, and that, as we know, is always a dangerous path to follow.
	The ODPM is now no more. The Minister is free from that encumbrance and has at last found her voice. It has taken a little time, though. As recently as two months ago, she was hailing home information packs as a welcome reform that would transform the home-buying and selling process. Only last month, she trumpeted the improved efficiency that HIPs would bring. We tried to point out the flaws in the scheme to her, but she denounced us—all of us—for being in the pocket of vested interests. Now, though, she has accepted our case that the scheme is flawed at its heart and needs a fundamental review. It would be, I have to say, churlish for us to do anything other than express our delight. As I am sure the Secretary of State will have told the Minister, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say and he has had a lot of cheap laughs. But the home improvement pack has been introduced to safeguard the interests of first-time buyers, so while he has his cheap dig at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister he might remember that the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced a number of significant safety measures to homes that have meant less people losing their lives in their homes. The hon. Gentleman has dismissed the home condition report, but applauded the energy saving instrument. That is fine, but to get energy saving, we need some of the instruments available in those home condition reports. He said no to that, and what he is actually saying is no to better home efficiency—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows that interventions must be brief.

Michael Gove: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady's intervention might perhaps be better directed to her hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. If she is such a great fan of home condition reports, she should concentrate her strictures on the Minister responsible for torpedoing that flagship.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: indicated dissent.

Michael Gove: One thing I should say is that we are actually debating home information packs, not, as the hon. Lady implied, home improvement packs. There is a clear distinction between the two. Home information packs are the legislation that we are discussing; home improvement packs are merely a solipsism to which the hon. Lady fell prey.

Shailesh Vara: Does my hon. Friend agree that references to first-time buyers bring to mind the fact that first-time buyers are often short of money? They have enough stress as it is and the need to produce extra cash for these useless packs—[Hon. Members: "They do not!"] Perhaps Members on the other side—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should make his point briefly. I think that his Front-Bench colleague will have understood what has been said.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend knows something about buying and selling houses and is absolutely right to say that these packs, had they been introduced, would have failed first-time buyers. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Let me explain; I shall be delighted to do so and shall take as long as hon. Gentlemen want.  [Interruption.] Thanks for that support from a sedentary position.
	The home condition report was supposed to forestall the need for a house buyer to commission a survey or valuation. As designed by the Government, however, it signally failed to provide proper protection for the consumer, and in particular for first-time buyers. In the regulations laid by the Minister, there was no requirement for home information packs to include information on flood risk, natural subsidence, electrical safety, radon gas or land contamination. As designed by the Government, home condition reports were both deficient and dangerous. They would not even have done the job for which they were originally conceived.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: I am trying to make a little progress.
	The Minister argued that when home condition reports were introduced the need for buyers' surveys would diminish dramatically. She quoted support that she claimed to have received from the Nationwide building society. Just last week, the Nationwide described the Department for Communities and Local Government's use of its figures as "misleading". Indeed, the Minister was clearly labouring under a misapprehension when she believed that home condition reports would dramatically reduce the need for buyers' surveys. Mortgage lenders need to be certain of a property's value before they can extend a loan. They explained to the Minister that a separate physical inspection, on top of the home condition report, would be needed in a wide range of circumstances.

Angela Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Gove: I will not at this stage.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: I am specifically addressing the request from the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends that I should discuss the plight of first-time buyers under this Government.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: No.
	Lenders specifically said that an additional survey evaluation would be needed where the mortgage was worth more than 80 per cent. of the value of the house, where the property was distinctive, newly built or a character home, and particularly for flats and conversions. As I am sure hon. Members will not need reminding, there are few first-time buyers whose mortgage is less than 80 per cent. of the value of the home. In addition, they are likely to be disproportionately represented among those buying new-built homes and flats. Ministers spent a great deal of time, and public money, trumpeting the benefit of home condition reports for first-time buyers, but those buyers, who are already hit by the Government's increases in stamp duty, would have faced paying twice, for the home condition report, which would have been added to the cost of the home, and for a lender's survey on top of it. As the party that has constantly championed wider home ownership and put support for first-time buyers at the heart of our policy process, we can only welcome—along with first-time buyers everywhere—the Government's retreat.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many first-time buyers, when entering into what is probably the largest financial transaction of their life, have any detailed information about the condition of the property they are buying? Does not he think that is a defect and that it is time something was done to improve it?

Michael Gove: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is defective: home condition reports designed by the Minister for Housing and Planning and conceived in the Department that the right hon. Gentleman once graced. How effective is a report that contains no details about flood risk or land contamination? How effective is a report that lenders will require a separate valuation or survey to back up?

Clive Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: No, I must make a little progress.

Angela Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Gove: I would love to make progress but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Angela Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
	Of course surveys are needed for valuation, but as anybody who has ever claimed on a chartered surveyor's professional indemnity insurance because of a defect found in a property would know, no home pack could ever give that level of assurance.

Michael Gove: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the many defects of the scheme was that, as of yesterday, there was no adequate indemnity insurance scheme for home inspectors, so the Government would have asked home inspectors to conduct inspections even though no private sector supplier was, at this stage, willing to insure them.

Clive Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: I must try to make a little progress—I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier.
	When the Minister makes her speech, I hope that she will not try to paint her retreat—which we want to celebrate—as a precursor to the reintroduction of the scheme, for there is no prospect of her being able to deliver on her Department's earlier pledges. As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, there are not enough qualified home inspectors ready; as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point said, there are fewer than 250, yet the Government said that they would need at least 7,500 to make the scheme work. The Minister has often told me and others that 4,000 inspectors are in training, but how many of them have merely registered for training? How many have actually ponyed up the £8,000 necessary to complete the course? When she tells us how many have put the money up front, will she tell us what words of condolence or what compensation she will offer to all the people who have sunk their money into a scheme that will not be honoured?
	The Government were prepared to spend £3 million on advertising the scheme—£3 million for spin doctors but no compensation for those who have lost their savings as a result of the Government's U-turn. What will those who invested in that flawed scheme think when public money is used to advertise the merits of a flagship that has already been sunk?
	More than that, there were real worries about the home condition report database, which was integral to the scheme. As we know, and as we have heard from Members on other occasions, the Government have grave problems in handling IT schemes. Lenders said that they needed 12 months to get systems in place to reconcile them to the HCR database, but even yesterday we still did not have details about the tender or the operating rules for the database. Last week, it was reported that two of the potential bidders to run the scheme had already pulled out. After yesterday's announcement, how many will offer to run it now? Rather than trying to nail the dead parrot to the perch, would not the Minister be better off admitting that the home condition report has shuffled off the mortal coil and gone to join the choir invisible?
	Ministers will try to clutch at two straws in their efforts to say that HIPs are still alive: the need for energy efficiency ratings, up front at the point of marketing, and the need for local government searches, also up front at the point of marketing. The Government have tried to make a great deal of the energy efficiency report, but the truth is that it is a fig leaf. It is small and it looks green, but it cannot really cover the Minister's embarrassment. As the Government have themselves admitted, and as I pointed out in response to two questions earlier, we do not need HIPs to implement energy efficiency reports. The Northern Ireland Office said that
	"we do not believe a home information pack is necessary to ensure compliance with the directive".
	Indeed, given that HIPs apply only when a home is bought or sold—obviously—how can we ensure that all the homes in the country have their energy efficiency rating fixed if we rely only on transactions for the commissioning of those ratings or reports? It simply does not make sense.
	The Government's pretensions to environmental consciousness in respect of house building policy will raise a hollow laugh in many parts of the country. Their code for sustainable homes has been criticised by both the World Wildlife Federation-UK and the Association for the Conservation of Energy. The WWF-UK resigned from the sustainable buildings taskforce, saying that it felt unable to defend the draft code because it did not do enough to promote energy conservation. In the last Parliament, the Environmental Audit Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), drew considerable attention to the environmental defects of the Government's house building programme. Indeed, it was only thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill has provisions to ensure that microgeneration is one of the factors that planning committees take into consideration when deciding whether to go ahead with new developments.

Alan Whitehead: Rubbish—the provision was always in the Bill.

Michael Gove: It was an amendment introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, which I was delighted to support. It is a commitment to the fact that when it comes to construction the Opposition take their environmental responsibilities seriously.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: No thank you.
	The final straw that the Minister may be tempted to clutch is the need for local searches, paid for at the point of marketing. But as anyone who has been involved in the home-buying and selling process knows, the key problem with local searches is that they need to be timely; after three months, they instantly date. It is much more sensible to make them at the point of sale rather than at the point of marketing. Indeed, the Government's pretensions to be an agent of quicker searches overall are undermined by their record. They presided over the introduction of the national land information service, which was designed to cut delay, but according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders NLIS is a mess; it is another flawed IT project. Fewer than 25 per cent. of local authorities can accept a request, process the search and deliver it electronically. Some local authorities take weeks to deliver. Nothing has been done to achieve full connectivity and more than half of local authorities say that the key problem is the Government's failure to ensure a fully joined-up system—yet another reason for the Government to get the detail right before pressing ahead with over-ambitious schemes.
	I have a specific question for the Minister on searches. At present, local authority searches do not incur VAT, but HIPs were supposed to incur VAT, so will we now have VAT on local authority searches as part of the HIP? Is that another stealth tax that the Minister is trying to rescue from the wreckage of her schemes?
	The home information pack was a sickly child; now it is being abandoned even by those who were anxious to bring it into the world. The Consumers Association—once the Government's loyal ally in this regard—said that the Government have come up with a half-baked compromise and shown that their house is made of straw. Today, the  Financial Times said of yesterday's climbdown:
	"It is hard to imagine a better way of discrediting the process before it even gets off the ground. Policy making on the hoof is rarely a pretty sight and it is pretty clear that this is a poorly thought-out climbdown. Time to go back to the drawing board."
	It is indeed time for the Government to go back to the drawing board. They have failed to provide adequate consumer protection in the housing market, failed to manage the crucial detail even though they were warned years ago, and failed to use their time and public money to bring about genuine improvements to the house-buying process. I suspect that it will fall to another Government to bring about the changes that first-time buyers and others need to secure the improvements that the country desperately needs.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"believes that reforms to home buying and selling need to be designed around the interests of consumers; further believes that Home Information Packs (HIPs) will cut waste and duplication and speed up transactions for consumers; applauds the proposed inclusion in HIPs of Energy Performance Certificates which will give buyers and sellers vital information about the energy efficiency of homes and practical suggestions about how to cut fuel bills and carbon emissions; welcomes the Government's intention to carry out further testing of HIPs; and notes that the Government is working with industry to encourage the successful voluntary take-up of Home Condition Reports, retaining the option of a mandatory approach to ensure widespread take-up, and thus maximising the benefit for consumers."
	As always, we heard an entertaining speech from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). It was rather lacking in fact or substance, but entertaining nevertheless.
	The hon. Gentleman began his speech with an important issue. He talked about stability in the housing market and in the economy. I think the people of this country will be astonished that the Conservatives are attempting to say that they have concern for housing market reforms because they are concerned about the stability of the economy and the housing market. The Conservatives put interest rates up to 15 per cent. They pushed people out of the housing market and pushed that market into free-fall. The hon. Gentleman talks about helping families on to the housing market ladder, yet his party pushed half a million families off the housing market ladder.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to a report that he knows is based on utterly unfounded assumptions—or at least I hope he knows, given his party's concern and its pretensions to try to regain some economic credibility. He also talked in some detail about his concerns about first-time buyers, and other hon. Members raised that issue. First-time buyers, by definition, are not sellers. They do not have to provide home information packs. In fact, they get the packs for free. They will get the information, for which they currently have to pay, for free. That is why home information packs are good news for first-time buyers and why the Labour party is supporting first-time buyers. Conservative Members say that they are concerned to help first-time buyers, yet they oppose home information packs, they oppose the new homes that we desperately need to help first-time buyers, and they oppose the funding of shared ownership schemes to help people get their first step on the housing ladder.

Michael Jabez Foster: Is not the situation even worse? Under the present scheme, do not first-time buyers quite often pay for surveys several times over, following abortive sales?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. If a first-time buyer, or any buyer, wants to buy a house and the sale falls through, another buyer will come along and have to pay for all the same searches all over again. That seems to be an awful lot of duplication and waste. It seems that an awful lot of money is going into the hands of people who are gathering that information, but the consumer should not be spending that money time and again.
	We know that Conservative Members have always opposed all aspects of home information packs. One minute they complain that they will cost too much, the next they tell us that sellers should pay more for extra information on flooding or on radon gas in their HIPs. One minute they say that HIPs are too bureaucratic, the next they say that they want someone who lives on top of the Pennines to pay for an extra bit of paper saying whether their property is subject to flood risk. We do not think that that is appropriate. The fact is that consumers can waste a lot of money under the current process. I do not understand why Conservative Members want to keep defending the status quo. Why do they want to keep defending a situation in which consumers waste huge amounts of money every day?

Adam Afriyie: I noticed that there were chuckles from the Labour Benches when the Minister was making some of those statements. If the home information packs are so important and essential, why have her Government now abandoned them?

Yvette Cooper: Let us be clear—we are not abandoning home information packs. The chuckles from the Labour Benches were at Conservative Members pretending to support the interests of first-time buyers and blatantly opposing measures that will help them.
	We think that we should not simply defend the status quo in the housing market. There are serious problems in the way in which that market works at the moment. Consumers can end up wasting a lot of money. There is a lack of transparency. They cannot have the information that they need. We think that we need to amend the way in which we introduce the home information packs and we have changed our approach in the light of the work on the dry run and the information on the readiness of the market. Many hon. Members have called on us to do more work on the testing, and we agree. We are doing more work. We will introduce area-based trials later in the year, underpinned by independent monitoring and research, to test the costs and benefits of the home information packs and to look at some of the underlying assumptions. We think that that is appropriate.

Gordon Prentice: I just wonder what the implications are for home inspectors. A constituent e-mailed me this morning to say that he had borrowed £7,000 to become a home inspector and he does not know what the future holds.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We recognise the uncertainty that many home inspectors are expressing. We are keen to tell them that we believe that home information packs will need to be introduced from 1 June next year and that they will need to include energy performance certificates, so there is work to be done to introduce those certificates by that date.
	We also want to promote the roll-out of the home condition reports. We think that those are valuable. However, we are concerned that a big bang approach and introducing all aspects of the home condition reports next year would pose too many risks to consumers. Therefore, in the trials that we shall begin later in the year, we shall look in particular at ways to support the roll-out of home condition reports. We shall work with the industry in order to increase take-up and look at both voluntary and mandatory approaches in order to be able to promote the roll-out of home condition reports. We think that the surveys will be very valuable for consumers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way in the order in which hon. Members caught my eye.

Justine Greening: For those home inspectors and those training to be home inspectors in areas not subject to the pilot tests, will the Government be willing to refund the money that they have spent training to do a job that will never materialise, potentially?

Yvette Cooper: As I have said, we think that we should be rolling out home condition reports. That is the clear aspect of the statement that we made yesterday. We want to start the trials this November. We will need home inspectors in place in order to be able to do the trials from this November for the home condition reports but, clearly, we will want to look at the results of those trials, too.

David Drew: Will my hon. Friend say something more about what she means by an area based roll-out? Are we talking about regions of the country, which has some sense in terms of the digital roll-out? Labour Back Benchers are keen, for environmental reasons, that home information packs be continued with. The people who are trained are vital, so we must make sure that they are supported and that there is a clear process. Perhaps she can say something about what that process will be.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Let us be clear. We think that the energy efficiency information needs to be brought in from 1 June next year nationwide, so that energy efficiency information, as part of the energy performance certificates, will be included on a mandatory basis within the HIP from 1 June next year. Obviously, we will need to test the workings of energy performance certificates and their effectiveness, but we also want to test the home condition reports and the top-up for the full survey. Our approach is to begin this summer with some detailed consumer research and analysis of the HIPs that have been produced already—there are HIPs that have been produced already across the country—in order to develop detailed area-based trials, to begin sometime later in the year. We will set out the details of those trials in the light of the further research that is taking place over the summer. We will inform Parliament in due course of further details on that.

Ian Lucas: In the trials, I ask my hon. Friend not to shy away from making the scheme compulsory. There have been numerous attempts to reform the conveyancing system to assist first-time buyers. I have personal experience of those. They have all failed as a result of a lack of compulsion. Sellers and their solicitors have chosen not to supply the information because of the additional cost for sellers, so I urge her to make the scheme compulsory. Consult and get it right, but make it compulsory.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have said, we want to look, as part of the trials, at different ways of supporting the take-up of the full home condition report. That may mean looking at incentives and at all sorts of different approaches, but we want to look at the mandatory approach, too. We are clear that we need the trials to look at a range of approaches to ensure that we can get the roll-out of the home condition reports and to ensure that those are effective. It is important that we learn from the trials and have a pragmatic approach in order to deliver the benefits for consumers and the environment.

Clive Betts: I welcome what the Minister just said. If we are going to market-test, market-testing mandatory home condition reports in at least some areas of the country will be worth while. I was at a breakfast meeting last week with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). At that time, he was also calling for a mandatory trial run on that basis, so we would satisfy him by doing that, too.

Yvette Cooper: Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have said, we want to consider the precise design of the trials in the light of the research over the summer, so at this stage we cannot confirm exactly how those trials will work. It will depend on the consumer research and the further analysis that we undertake.

Nick Raynsford: May I press my hon. Friend a little further on that matter? She will know from the research that has been done that the vast majority of dry run packs that have been issued to date have not included the home condition report. How will the evidence from that research help her to conclude which areas would be appropriate for the mandatory tests, to which she responded positively—which was welcome—in replying to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts)?

Yvette Cooper: It is important to make clear what we are considering. We want to look at mandatory, voluntary and other approaches to roll-out, but we cannot make a commitment to conduct a mandatory trial, as there are problems with the practicalities of such a trial, and we must undertake further work over the summer. We are looking at existing HIPs—my right hon. Friend is right that many of them have been produced without surveys—and at consumer attitudes and evidence from other countries. He will know that Denmark, for example, has introduced home condition reports in an extremely popular scheme that is similar to HIPs. We want, too, to look at the experience in Australia and other countries. We must therefore undertake detailed and informed work so that we can promote the home condition reports.
	Once HIPs are in place, they can be topped up to become full HIPs with a home condition report. Most people do not have a HIP, so their position will be very different if searches are conducted and an energy performance certificate is issued. We want to work with the industry to look at the alternative options in a market-led approach to roll-out. As the amendment makes clear, the Secretary of State believes that the mandatory approach remains on the table.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the Government for proceeding more slowly with home information packs. I welcome my hon. Friend's measured tone and approach to the issue, in contrast to the pyrotechnics of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—his speech was all sizzle and no steak—and I urge her not to fall for his strictures on local authority searches. I remember conveyancing when the Opposition were in office. Local authority searches could take up to 46 weeks, but the Conservative Government did nothing about it.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. If we provide information at the beginning of the process, rather than at the end, we will cut the time that it takes to buy and sell homes. That takes far too long at present, and it is not a sensible way to run a major market in which people invest huge amounts of money in their most important possession.

Bob Spink: It is claimed that the national land information service is dysfunctional, which would prevent the benefits of HIPs from being realised if the scheme proceeds. How does the Minister intend to make sure that electronic local authority searches work better? Will she, for instance, consider compulsion?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that NLIS works effectively. He will be aware that reforms to e-conveyancing have the potential to introduce a substantial measure of transparency. If there are long delays, people do not know whether it is their solicitor or estate agent or the other party's solicitor or estate agent who is at fault, or whether there is a problem elsewhere in the chain. Most people who are buying or selling a home do not know whether the delay in the system is legitimate because they cannot work out where it is. They do not know whether someone is ripping them off, because they do not know exactly what is going on. Together, e-conveyancing and HIPs have a huge potential to introduce transparency in the system.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I should like to make a little progress, as I have given way to many hon. Members.
	It is important to acknowledge the importance of the energy performance certificates, but Opposition Members' response was disappointing. They had an opportunity to back them and welcomed the changes that we have made to the programme. They could acknowledge that HIPs and energy performance certificates will have a big impact, as 27 per cent. of carbon emissions in this country come from domestic homes. The certificates will allow us to give people reliable information so that they can cut those emissions as well as fuel bills. However, there is not a word about the certificates in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. There was hardly a word about them in his speech, although he did mention them under questioning by Government Members. Opposition Members have a chance to support the introduction of energy performance certificates 18 months earlier than the European deadlines, because it is important to give people information on ways in which they can cut fuel bills and carbon emissions.
	Green gimmicks are all that the Tories can offer. They fly to the Arctic and they sledge with the huskies, but they will not tell a first-time buyer how to cut her fuel bills. They ride bikes across London, but only if the chauffeur is following with the shoes. They say that it is okay for the wealthy to buy wind turbines, but they will not tell everyone else how important it is to lag the loft. That is the reality of the Opposition's policy on the environment. They are not prepared to introduce energy performance certificates early, even though the measure is backed by WWF and Friends of the Earth. There is silence from the Opposition. All that they say is that work in Northern Ireland suggests that we could proceed without home information packs. They may wish to know that Northern Ireland cannot introduce energy performance certificates on 1 June next year, 18 months earlier than the European deadline. It will introduce them, but it still has an awful lot of work to do, as there must be consultation and regulations must be introduced. We are right to introduce the certificates early with HIPs to give people proper information about ways in which they can cut emissions from their homes.

Justine Greening: A couple of weeks ago, the Government acquiesced in the introduction of an EU directive to postpone mandatory nitrogen oxide emissions targets for another five years. That is not the approach one would expect of an environmentally friendly Government, so rather than criticising the Opposition the hon. Lady should look at what her own party is doing.

Yvette Cooper: Given that the Tories opposed the climate change levy and are desperate to get out of any European policy, they do not have a huge amount of credibility on the issue.
	The Opposition parties have always opposed the reform of home buying and selling. They have resisted every aspect of HIPs and energy performance certificates from the beginning, and they object to estate agents having to change the way in which they operate. They have defended the status quo and the vested interests of people who make money from the system, rather than defending the consumer. It is right to conduct detailed debates about the way in which we can make the changes effective, and we must ensure that we learn from the trials and from experience. However, we must ensure, too, that we reform home buying and selling and the wider housing market to achieve stability, which benefits the economy, as hon. Members said at the outset of our debate. We must build more homes, but Opposition Members have repeatedly rejected that proposal. If they cared about stability in the housing market, they would back our proposals to build 200,000 new homes, but they have failed to do so.

Jacqui Lait: They must be in the right place.

Yvette Cooper: Where is the right place? Opposition Members can never think of the right place to build homes—they oppose them wherever they are. The oppose them on greenfield and on brownfield sites; they oppose them in the country and in the town. They do not want them here or there; they do not want them anywhere. It is a Dr. Seuss or "Green Eggs and Ham" approach to housing policy. The reality is that Opposition Members do not care about housing market stability, or benefits for the consumer or first-time buyers and home owners. The Government have introduced benefits for the housing market, for the consumer and for the home buyer. We will continue to do so, and we will back the interests of the next generation—not the vested interests that have dominated the Opposition for far too long.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2006
	Finance Act 2006
	Commons Act 2006
	Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc Act 2006
	Health Act 2006

Home Information Packs

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Andrew Stunell: I congratulate the Minister on making such good use of the extra week that she has had to consider the Government's position, as a result of my hon. Friends forcing an Adjournment of the House following the Government's craven and inept use of the extradition rules. It cannot have been easy, but eventually, by 5 pm yesterday, reality had broken in on the Government. As a Liberal Democrat, I was pleased to see that reality came in the form of the Minister's statement, the terms of which were very similar to the amendment that we tabled for today's debate but which, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker has not selected for consideration.
	The Minister set out the key considerations in much the same terms as those in which we see the problems of the home information packs project, as it was. First, there has been a significant delay in issuing the vital regulations determining how the scheme would run. One of my questions to the Minister is whether tomorrow's statutory instrument Committee is still intended to go ahead and consider some of those rules, or whether the rules now have to be withdrawn and reconsidered. Secondly, there has been serious delay in implementing any pilot schemes. Thirdly, there are insufficient inspectors to carry out a mandatory scheme on the time scale that the Minister originally set out.
	In the amendment that we tabled both last week and today, we pointed out that there needs to be a realistic assessment of when and how a compulsory scheme should be introduced. We also made the point that we do not need a gold-plated home information pack scheme. We were therefore pleased that the scheme outlined by the Minister in her statement is confined to fulfilling the important EU directive, and does not include gold-plated extras. Her statement yesterday was three times longer than our amendment, but it made the same points.
	A useful concept has been wrecked by difficulties of the Government's own making, and it would be unwise and unsafe to plough on. The Minister may initially have been seduced by an attractive argument, and one which appeals to me on many occasions—that anything opposed both by estate agents and by the Conservative party must be good. Well, 99 times out of 100, that is correct, but the Minister has belatedly understood that this was the 100th occasion.
	We are grateful for the decision that the hon. Lady has taken and we look forward with great interest to what will happen next. The Liberal Democrats welcome the energy efficiency certificate and the fact that it will be introduced next year. However, she should not take too much credit for bringing it in 18 months early. That is not the case. In 1998, my former hon. Friend who was then the Member for Torridge and West Devon introduced a Bill that would have brought about exactly what is to happen in 2007. I was a sponsor of his Energy Efficiency Bill and served on the Committee that considered it. The Bill was opposed by the Government and eventually fell in July 1998.
	If the Government want to take the credit for introducing home energy certificates 18 months early, they should also take the blame for bringing them in nine years late—nine years in which an extra 1.5 million homes have been built and about 11 million homes have been sold, none of which have had home energy efficiency checks, because back in 1998 the Government opposed their introduction. There have been no certificates, no transparency and no market pressure for energy efficiency for nine unnecessarily prolonged years.

Rob Marris: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that there are no energy efficiency requirements and no energy efficiency information with respect to the 1.5 million new homes? I find that extremely difficult to believe.

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the energy efficiency information has been available for the past nine years. If so, why is he trying to take credit for such a requirement being introduced in June next year? He cannot have it both ways. Much as I welcome the home energy certificate element of the Government's proposals, I do not believe that it is right or appropriate for them to try to take credit for being ahead of the crowd, when they are in fact years behind what my former hon. Friend proposed.
	In the present fiasco, we must not lose the core points about reducing the carbon emissions from our homes, increasing the transparency of transactions when buying and selling takes place, and reducing the stress factor. There is no doubt that buying or selling a home is a deeply stressful experience.
	I was interested to read both the amendment tabled by the Government last week and the one that they tabled this week. They are almost identical, but they differ in one interesting respect. Last week, the final sentence said:
	"the Government is working with industry on the development of...tests and...it has already announced that it will set out further details before the Parliamentary Recess."
	This week, the Government amendment ends with the statement that
	"the Government is working with industry to encourage the successful voluntary take-up of Home Condition Reports, retaining the option of a mandatory approach to ensure widespread take-up, and thus maximising the benefit for consumers."
	The industry out there is baffled by the Government's approach and by the changes that they have made. The public are bemused and the Minister, despite her eloquence, sounds somewhat bewildered about what to do next. Will the hon. Lady please make sure that whatever comes out of the changes, we do not lose sight of the need for improved energy conservation, improved transparency and a reduction in stress?
	Between 1 million and 1.5 million houses are sold each year. The best moment to make changes to those homes to reduce their carbon impact is when they are empty, when they are being bought and sold, and when, for the most part, householders are in the best frame of mind and have greatest access to finances to make those changes. We must therefore ensure that energy certificates are used as a market tool, so that if energy efficiency is bad, that is reflected in the price, and to give a prompt that instead of a new kitchen, some extra insulation in the loft might be better value for money. Without home energy efficiency certificates, there will still be substantial problems with compliance.
	On transparency, I am sure the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) would be the first to say that markets work best when they are informed markets. Home sellers should not concentrate on baking bread in the kitchen on the day that the buyer comes round so that the house smells right— [Interruption.] They should make sure that the house is properly insulated and has the right equipment to maintain energy efficiency.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman— [Interruption.] Order. I do not want a running commentary from a sedentary position. It is interrupting the debate.

Andrew Stunell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but I would be happy to take a further intervention from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris).
	If we had a more transparent market in which people knew what they were buying and understood what they were selling, stress would be reduced. A survey was conducted at the beginning of this year on the most stressful events in people's lives: divorce accounted for 17 per cent.; bereavement accounted for 28 per cent.; and buying, selling and moving house, which are stressful experiences, accounted for 44 per cent. We need to make sure that we take steps to deal with that issue.
	So far as the Government's announcement goes, we know that they have listened to their critics, but they are obliged to say what will happen next, and I do not believe that they have fulfilled that obligation today.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one problem faced by Ministers is that they have not conducted any full-blown tests? We have been given promise after promise about test after test. The latest idea is a test in Cambridge with university students. Can the hon. Gentleman think of a worse group of people on whom to conduct a test?

Andrew Stunell: That is a challenge—but I will not attempt to name a worse group of people. However, I will talk about pilots, because some significant points need to be sorted out. On a practical level, a Statutory Instrument Committee is considering regulations on HIPs tomorrow, so will those regulations be changed? When will the rest of the information needed to make the pilots effective be introduced? And what is the plan for the pilots?
	A central question, which the Minister did not address in a straightforward way, is whether the pilots will be free. A home condition survey provided free is a very different animal from one for which people must volunteer to pay. One of the significant points of criticism is that HIPs might depress the volume of sales, and that will depend on whether people have to pay for the service.

Charles Walker: If the home owner does not pay, who will fund those surveys?

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has suggested that some of the £3 million of promotional money should be used. I am not arguing that the surveys should be free. I am simply saying that previous discussion suggests that the Government thought that they were testing the mechanics, such as whether the envelopes could be opened quickly enough, when they needed to measure the impact on the market of a completely new vehicle for house buying and selling. The pilots need to be conducted on the right financial basis, and the Government should tell us where the pilots will conducted, how representative they will be and the scale on which they will be conducted.
	How long the pilots will run is not as critical as it used to be. When the Minister made her announcement last night, it must have been in her mind that she could not use a pilot scheme that ran for a month or two in the winter, when sales are depressed, to gauge whether the scheme is functional. She has referred to market research that will be conducted this summer before the pilots start, and I welcome any moves to make the pilots as realistic as possible. We also need to know what will be used to judge success or failure in the pilot schemes.
	As has already been asked, what will be the fate of those who started out on HIP training programmes? This afternoon, I heard that Reading university is currently running a course attended by 480 students, who have paid £8,500 each to be on it. When the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was changed into the Department for Communities and Local Government a few weeks ago, the students on the course asked for, and were given, a specific assurance that the change in the structure of the Departments would not affect the implementation of the HIPs, and the students continued on the course on that basis. The Government have an obligation to say what they intend to do about that matter and how they see the job prospects for those students either under a voluntary scheme, which might one day be a mandatory scheme, or during the pilot exercises. What future do they intend them to have?

Charles Walker: Surely this is the lesson to be learned by Reading university and others: for God's sake, do not start running training courses until a Bill has been enacted or an idea has become law.

Andrew Stunell: I do not know whether Reading university should take the rap. There has been a serious attempt to recruit people to meet a Government deadline, which has now been changed, and the question is whether the whole scheme has been changed or abandoned. What are the prospects for those students? It may be that so few people have participated in training programmes that the work available from the voluntary scheme will be sufficient. We need to hear from the Government exactly what will happen.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point. People did not undertake the training because they were not sure whether the Government were committed to HIPs, which has proved to be the case. He is right: the Government have let down those students, so surely they should pay.

Andrew Stunell: I have raised a number of specific questions, and I believe that the Government have an obligation to respond to them. If the Government say that they will not pay, we need to know their reasoning. They might believe that there will be a sufficient job market for those people, but if that is the case, let us hear about it. At the moment, the people who were naive enough or enthusiastic enough to take the Government at face value find themselves in the front line without a bayonet, while Ministers are safe in the rear pointing at maps and waving their arms.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: For the sake of clarification, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that his party supports the home condition report?

Andrew Stunell: Our amendment makes it clear what we do and do not support. When the legislation was being considered, we made it clear in this Chamber and in Committee what should have happened. My point is that much as I would like the situation to be different, it is not, and the Government must determine how they will sweep up the broken glass that they have left behind.
	I want briefly to comment on what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath had to say. He was as eloquent as ever, and he spoke forcefully in favour of one specific Conservative policy, which is outright opposition to HIPs—that is one of the rare issues on which the Conservatives currently have a policy. However, I felt that his point about housing stability was wildly inaccurate. When I last bought and sold a house, it was in the middle of the housing slump induced by his Government and his Chancellor. If he represents himself as speaking on behalf of a party that has a record of achieving housing stability, it significantly devalues his eloquent contribution to the debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Stunell: Why not?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; perhaps this will give the House a chance to have a breather.
	I have looked at the hon. Gentleman's amendment carefully. Given that it refers to
	"the nature and date of introduction of the compulsory scheme",
	it is clear that the Liberal Democrats support the compulsory introduction of a home condition report scheme. It goes on:
	"and further calls on the Government to limit the scope of the scheme to that required by the EU Directive, rather than the current 'gold-plated' alternative."
	Can he outline exactly what the Liberal Democrats mean by that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With no disrespect to either hon. Gentleman, that amendment was not selected, so it would not be in order to go into detail about it.

Andrew Stunell: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman refers to the  Hansard record of proceedings in Committee and in this House, he will see that we opposed the introduction of the compulsory scheme.
	I want to comment briefly on the use by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath of the Oxford study of the impact of HIPs, which has been hopelessly oversold. He and I attended a meeting where some of these points were discussed. The downside predicted by that study depends on an assumption about a reduction in transactions. I noted from the information given at the same time by the authors of the study that the reduction, or rather fluctuation, in the number of transactions owed far more to issues such as interest rates and the price differential between different parts of the country than it did to a one-off cost. In criticising the Government's proposals, it is important that we do not shoot at non-existent targets.
	Now that the frenetic rush towards June 2007 has ended, we need to take a long, hard look at the best and quickest way of smoothing the process of home sale and purchase, saving on costs for buyers and sellers alike, breaking the potent monopolies of agents and lawyers, and providing a strong incentive for energy efficiency and an improvement in the performance of our building stock. We need to bring a welcome and necessary transparency to the process of buying and selling a house, which is too opaque for most buyers and many sellers.
	Home information packs have had a bumpy and fractious ride. Liberal Democrat Members ask the Government and the industry to step back and take a deep breath, to engage with the Opposition Members who one day soon will inherit their legacy, and to develop a viable durable scheme that is truly fit for purpose.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many more hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye than those of whom we have had previous notification. There is no time limit, but I would appreciate it if hon. Members would bear in mind that there is quite a demand to speak in this debate.

Nick Raynsford: Let me start by drawing attention to my registered interests as chairman of the Construction Industry Council, chairman of the NHBC Foundation, and a director of Hometrack.
	I suspect that today's debate will not be seen as one of the finer moments in the history of housing policy or, indeed, of our democratic processes. A long overdue reform that held out the prospect of radically transforming and simplifying the home buying and selling process, cutting out waste and abortive costs and reducing the scope for failed transactions, disappointment and heartache has been seriously put at risk as a result of cynical, short-sighted opportunism from the Conservative party and a deeply regrettable loss of nerve on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
	Let us go back to first principles. It is no coincidence that the home buying and selling process in England is widely recognised as one of the most stressful activities that individuals and families experience in the course of their lives. At the heart of it lies the curious presumption that prospective buyers should make an offer without the benefit of essential information about the property that they are proposing to acquire. That is of course completely at odds with the normal principles of consumer protection.
	In theory, the problem is reduced by the fact that the offer remains conditional until the buyer has had the opportunity to carry out the necessary checks to satisfy himself that what he is proposing to buy is worth the amount he has offered. However, that is precisely where so many of the problems that bedevil the system arise. The surveys and searches undertaken for the buyer may well reveal hidden problems or potential risks that may in turn either halt the process or prompt renegotiation of the price, which in itself inevitably means further delay and risk. While all that is going on, the seller may well have second thoughts and either withdraw the property from the market or accept an offer from another source—the infamous practice of gazumping. When that happens, all the costs that the prospective buyer has incurred in surveyors and lawyers' fees will prove abortive. About £1 million is lost every day in that way, which is just senseless waste.
	It is not surprising that many prospective buyers choose not to incur that expenditure but seek to minimise their outlay by not commissioning a survey and relying instead on their lender's valuation. In consequence, they may well end up with far less basic information about the home they are buying than about even the most ephemeral consumer product. Yet it is often the largest financial transaction in their lives, and bearing in mind the fact that they will have to live with the consequences for very many years, it is clearly an unsatisfactory process.
	That is where the concept of home information packs comes in. They would ensure that all prospective buyers have access at the outset to detailed information about the property, its condition, any restrictive covenants that apply to it, and potential planning implications that may affect its value or amenity. In that way, the buyer is better equipped to make an informed decision on whether to make an offer, and if so, how much to offer. Furthermore, the scope for subsequent delay, complications and abortive costs is greatly reduced.
	The introduction of home information packs would not only result in a simpler, quicker, fairer and more transparent process, but encourage a more efficient market in which some of the current unjustified costs would not survive. For example, lenders continue to require prospective buyers to meet very substantial costs for the valuation of the property—£350 or more is typical. Yet we know that automated valuation models provide an alternative for a fraction of the cost and are increasingly demonstrating a high degree of accuracy. The introduction of HIPs and a more transparent and competitive market would rapidly accelerate the process of change to AVMs with substantial cost benefits to the public.
	The special pleading by the Council for Mortgage Lenders on this subject is one of the more regrettable examples of a defence of vested interests instead of the promotion of the public interest. I am sorry that the Opposition and the Government appear to have given more heed than deserved to its representations.
	There is a very strong case for the introduction of HIPs. Today's debate should have been about how we can achieve that in the most effective way and with the least possible delay. Instead, we have an Opposition gloating in their ability to frustrate and derail something that is clearly in the public interest, and a Government who are backtracking from one of their manifesto commitments. What could possibly justify that? What are the arguments against HIPs, apart from the vested interests of certain groups, including some estate agents and mortgage lenders who do very nicely out of the current arrangements and do not want changes that will threaten them? There are four arguments against HIPs that should be addressed, although I do not believe that any one of them survives serious scrutiny.
	First, there is the issue of cost, about which there has been a great deal of speculation and little serious analysis in the media. The figure of £1,000 has been widely bandied about, with the assumptions that packs will cost that amount to produce and that that will be an added financial burden on home sellers. Neither of those assumptions bears serious examination. Even if the cost to HIP producers were to be £1,000 per pack—most serious commentators believe that it will be significantly less—that is not what the seller would be asked to pay when they put their home on the market. There would be stiff competition to secure the HIP business and the potential commercial benefits that would flow from it, and that would drive down the charges made to individuals commissioning HIPs. A cost of about £350 is much more likely to have been the outcome, with some providers already holding out the prospect of offering the packs for free.
	Furthermore, the largest potential producers have already made it clear that they would not charge sellers up front for the packs but would only set the charge against the proceeds of the sale when completed. At the same time, we should not forget that most sellers are also buyers, and any costs that they incur from the HIP would be offset by the benefit they get from the provision of the pack on the properties they are considering purchasing, as well as the removal of the risk of abortive costs for surveys and searches. Then there is the benefit for first-time buyers, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning identified.
	The second possible objection to HIPs is their scope. There are obvious balances to be struck. If the home condition report is too comprehensive, there will be cost implications, but if its coverage is limited, its value is reduced if not undermined altogether. The proposals that have formed the basis of the scheme up to now appear to be basically right. They mean to provide the information that could be expected from a mid-range survey, while recognising that, in some special cases, additional information might be required. Whether that is the correct balance could have been further assessed in the course of testing the scheme. Some fine tuning would have been possible in the run-up to introduction and as the scheme proceeded. However, it is clear that neither the position adopted by the Opposition nor that of the Government is credible.
	There are few better illustrations of the Opposition's opportunism than their repeated complaints about the alleged excessive cost of HIPs, swiftly followed by suggestions that, without additional information, the home condition report will be worthless. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly made that point.
	The Government's announcement yesterday that the home condition report will not be a mandatory part of the home information pack is equally misguided. Although energy efficiency reports are welcome, they constitute only one relatively small element in the total equation. Few people, if any, will base their decision of whether to buy a property primarily on its energy rating. Yesterday's announcement is therefore, as the  Financial Times rightly observes, almost the worst possible outcome: retaining a significant cost attributable to the need for a visit to survey the property for its energy rating, without getting the benefit of the full home condition report and the economy of scale implicit in conducting both surveys at the same time.

Michael Wills: I am interested in my right hon. Friend's argument about the energy rating. Does not he perceive its value in changing the culture and the way in which people approach their energy emissions?

Nick Raynsford: I fully agree that the energy rating is a significant element, but it is only a part of the picture, and the vast majority of people who consider buying a property want to consider several other factors, including structural stability, the location and the property's characteristics, as well as energy efficiency. There should be a comprehensive report. That is much more cost effective than having two separate surveys. I fear that that is one of the wasted opportunities of the decision not to proceed with the mandatory home condition report.
	That leads me to the third objection: that HIPs have not been sufficiently trialled and tested, that there are not enough trained home inspectors, that preparations for June 2007 are behind schedule, and that there is consequently a risk of serious problems and turbulence in the market around the introduction date.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady please address the Chair, not her right hon. Friend, even though she wishes to question him?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that a benefit of the energy performance certificate is that it will force domestic householders to consider how they expend energy, thus saving money? Would not the home condition report also accrue a benefit from that in that homeowners would be forced to consider other elements and other expenditure in their homes and try to gain equal cost advantage from improving those, too?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is experienced in those matters. Indeed, I believe that she is currently training in the process of undertaking home condition reports— [Interruption.] She makes the valid point that the reports are about providing additional information to the public to enable them to make more informed judgments, and the abusive noises from the Opposition Benches imply disrespect towards those who are seriously trying to help the public to be better informed about the most important financial decision that most people will make in their lives.
	There is ground for concern about the speed of implementation and the adequacy of the number of home inspectors, but the Government's decision to pull the plug on the mandatory home condition reports is precipitate and wrong. The training of inspectors, although slow to start, has been gathering pace this summer. Indeed, there will be many upset and angry individuals who have invested much time and money in preparation and training for the introduction of the reports. They will feel badly let down. All the evidence that I have gleaned from those with genuine experience of the market shows that the June 2007 date was achievable and that, even if some difficulties had occurred around the start of the new arrangements, they would have been overcome in a relatively short time.
	Let me say a brief word about the likely impact on the market. There has probably been more ill-informed speculation, scaremongering and nonsense aired in recent months about that than about any other aspect of the scheme. The suggestion, which has been put about, that HIPs will lead to a massive slump in the market and that 90,000 estate agents will consequently be out of work—incidentally, that was seen as a downside—are, frankly, not worth the newspaper on which they are written.
	Of course, there may be some short-term reductions in the number of properties put on the market because, as everyone knows, under current arrangements some homeowners put their properties up for sale to get a feel for their value, with no serious intention of proceeding to sell. However, by definition, the vast majority of those speculative sales would never have proceeded. So the idea that their withdrawal from estate agents' windows will lead to a collapse of the volume of sales is unconvincing. The report to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) repeatedly referred is a perfect example of that. If one puts rubbish in as one's assumption, one is likely to get rubbish out as one's conclusion.
	The factors that determine the overall volume of sales and, indeed, trends in house prices are far more fundamental and reflect wider economic trends. While the Government continue to manage our economy as skilfully as they have done in the past nine years, we should have no reason to fear a serious downturn in the market. On the contrary, the creation of a fairer, better, quicker and more transparent system of buying and selling homes should improve the prospects for a thriving housing market in the years ahead—one in which the interest of the public comes first and the professionals involved are genuinely competing for business in a way that delivers best value for money for the citizens.
	I greatly regret yesterday's announcement that home condition reports will not be a mandatory component of home information packs when they are introduced next June. The suggestion that they can be introduced on a voluntary basis is wishful thinking. The irony behind all that is that, after years of dragging their feet, many of the vested interests who have done well financially out of the current arrangements have come round to accepting that a fundamental reform was inevitable. The more progressive elements in the industry were already gearing up to take advantage of a more open and transparent market in a way that would have brought genuine benefits to the public. It is hardly surprising that consumer voices are the most disappointed today and that the backwoods estate agents and the Opposition are crowing.
	I am sorry that the Government, whom I support and as part of whom I served for many years, have made such a grievous error of judgment, which will make it much harder to achieve the fundamental reform to the home buying and selling process in England that is so overdue. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will realise before too long that they have made a mistake, which must be reversed, and that they must introduce HIPs, with the full mandatory home condition report, in the lifetime of the Parliament.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Follow that if one can! I am amazed that we are holding such a debate. Future generations of home sellers and buyers will celebrate the change that has happened, and the Government should designate 18 July a public holiday. Perhaps it could be named Prescott day in memory of a politician who made it possible by cocking it all up. The architect of the scheme is a disaster and the idea was insane. Only the Deputy Prime Minister could have devised it, making even Donald Rumsfeld appear sensible.
	I cannot wait to see the back of the dreadful home information packs. It is an appalling scheme. Whatever the Minister claims, hopes and has powers to achieve, I am sorry but the Government are wrong. I agree with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) that the matter should be examined, but not in the current manner. Change must happen, but let us think it through. There has been too much emotion cast here, there and everywhere, and that should not continue.
	The home condition report will also bite the dust. Why is the idea crumbling? Because, again, it was not thought through. However, according to the Minister, HIPs remain top of the pops for the general public. That is not the case—HIPs have gone down like a lead balloon with the general public. If one talks to estate agents, mortgage providers and the Law Society, they will say that the general public do not want HIPs.

Clive Betts: No vested interest there, then.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Yes, there is a vested interest. Those people talk to the public. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would do the same.
	The Consumers Association, which unfortunately orchestrated the scheme, asked only 1,000 people what they considered to be the way forward for home improvement. That was two or three years ago. How can one base legislation on a consumer report of three years ago, with a sample of only 1,000 people? One cannot. Which? is a tremendous publication. It does a good job, but it is produced by a broad-brush organisation, not a forensic organisation.
	Of course, the organisations that I have mentioned have a vested interest, and they know what they are talking about. That is what Labour Members cannot accept. A mortgage lender lends money; an estate agent is trained to do that job; and the members of the Law Society are pretty good at the job that they do. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is not in his place at the moment.

David Evennett: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I would like to emphasise that my constituents are also raising these concerns. The general public are worried about the value of these packs and about the increased costs involved. They are also worried about what the packs will be worth if they are not mandatory. My hon. Friend's powerful case is backed up not only by the professionals, but by a number of my constituents who have contacted me.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Is it not the general public—our constituents across the country—whom we are here to protect, rather than vested interest groups? The Minister is relying on a Consumers Association report based on a survey of 1,000 people. Come on!
	My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is aware that we have been running a HIPs survey in my constituency, as he has been extremely helpful in putting it together. Minehead is a town of 10,000 people on Exmoor, with no large towns around it. I went to see Mr. Nick Lacey of Langdon's estate agents and asked him to get every estate agent in the town to help with the survey. Every one of them is doing so, including the ones who have signed up to provide HIPs. Over the past month, they have been asking every buyer, seller and renter to fill in a questionnaire, and the responses have been revealing. They show what the public—the people whom we represent—think. I will present the findings to the Minister, even though they will be slightly out of date. Why did we choose an area such as Minehead? Because it is self-contained and populated by predominantly older people with money and common sense. Funnily enough, they are the general public. That might come as a surprise to some people.
	The customers were very keen to fill in the questionnaires, which have revealed that they do not understand what they would be getting themselves into. That is the message that is coming back through the estate agents. They are not sure what the packs will entail. They do not know the costs involved or the ramifications of the process. What is an energy report? It is a thing on the fridge that says "A" or "B" or "C". That is what people think. They do not understand the proposals. Are we going to paint "A", "B" or "C" on the side of people's houses? That would be good in areas of outstanding natural beauty such as Exmoor. Oh, sorry—that is the public; we do not talk about them.
	Opposition to HIPs is running at an all-time high, with three to one against them. People in the very group that will allegedly benefit from the scheme were asked whether they thought that HIPs would stop gazumping, and 85 per cent. said no, they would not. Of course they would not. They might help a bit, but they are not going to stop it. We are going to have to do more than that. An even higher proportion of the interim results show that buyers will not trust HIPs because the seller has to pay the bill. Nobody trusts a report that has been paid for by the other side—they want to find out for themselves. They would be silly not to. However, I suspect that when I present my survey results to the Minister, they will be ignored because they are from the general public.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The individuals who will be charged with undertaking the inspections will not just have been swept up off the road. They will have had to undertake significant training. Many of them will already be chartered surveyors. When they carry out an energy assessment, they will be competent to do so. They will also be bound by professional standards, which will mean that they are impartial and will provide only technical advice. Does the hon. Gentleman think that he is misleading people when he suggests otherwise? Are not the vast majority of people in this country genuinely interested in their energy consumption? Would not they want to find out about that from a qualified individual?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Qualified? Reading university? I am told that Rightmove is now training people for free. The Government are so worried that there will not be enough providers that they are now giving cut-price courses. I know who I would depend on. It would be an estate agent, a lawyer or a mortgage lender who will go out and get the relevant information. This is not about telling people, "You can have an 'A' rating on your fridge."

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: No, I will not give way again.
	This is wrong. People are not going to get a clear understanding of what the energy efficiency of their house is. How long will the scheme last anyway? Until the next lot of European directives comes through and we have to change the process again. Another 300 quid.
	The Minister has not mentioned housing associations and I am not sure whether that issue has disappeared. My local housing association in Sedgemoor, SHAL Housing, asked me whether, under the new scheme, it would have to carry out a brand new energy rating every time a property was let. I could not answer that question, but perhaps the Minister will be able to. If that is the case, will the Minister look into the situation as a matter of urgency? I am sure that no one would want housing associations to have to fork out money every time a property was let. I would have thought that that assumption was probably wrong.
	The Danish scheme has resulted in a 25 per cent. decrease in the market. If HIPs did not work in Denmark, they will not work here. I am delighted that the Bill has been scrapped and that the Government have seen sense. I am just sorry that £3 million was spent before that happened.

Clive Betts: Some years ago, the Government introduced the draft Housing Bill, which contained the initial proposals for HIPs. I was a member of the then Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which considered the proposals. I was also a member of the Standing Committee on the Housing Bill. Other hon. Members who are here today were also part of that process.
	I began by making the basic presumption that the present house buying and selling processes in this country were not really adequate or fit for purpose. To begin with, however, I was not convinced that HIPs necessarily represented the right way forward. I therefore asked members of the Select Committee to take part in the discussions on the Housing Bill and to question Ministers and Members on the Opposition Front Bench. Eventually, I came to round to the view that HIPs were an appropriate way forward, although I did have some reservations and wanted to see certain elements of them changed.
	There were certain givens involved in the house buying and selling processes that we needed to see incorporated into any system designed to deliver an appropriate process for our constituents. When individuals buy or sell a property, they are embarking on what is, for most of them, the most important financial transaction of their lives. Buyers and sellers are therefore entitled to receive and provide appropriate and adequate information about the property. That is a very simple point.
	At the moment, people embark on that process with nothing more than an estate agent's guide—and we all know what that can mean in practice in many cases. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) talked about estate agents. Anyone can set themselves up as an estate agent. In this country, they need no qualifications at all to do so. There are some very good ones on whom I would be very happy to rely, but the reality is that many have no qualifications. The general public ought to be very concerned indeed that all they have to go on when buying a house is a brochure from an estate agent. The principle that the public should be protected by a system in which the seller provides information to the prospective buyer therefore seems a good starting point.
	Secondly, whatever process we have, there will be costs. At present, there are search and survey costs and a whole variety of other costs, including estate agency fees. It seems to me to be reasonable that the costs should fall on the vendor rather than the purchaser. That protects first-time buyers who, by their very nature, are not sellers, and will therefore be helped by home information packs and home condition reports as they will not have to bear upfront costs. I shall deal with the point at which costs might be incurred in a moment.
	If we can develop a system that avoids at least some elements of the duplication that can, although not in every transaction, occur, we should do so. At present, it is obvious that some transactions involve more than one request for a search and that some individuals seeking to buy a house have a search done on more than one property. If we can avoid that duplication by providing the search in the pack from the beginning, that seems to be a sensible principle. Some properties may have been on the market for so long that a second search must be done. The likelihood, however, is that there will be fewer searches and less expenditure under the HIPs proposals than under the current arrangements. No one has ever really tried to dispute that.
	If information about the energy efficiency of homes can be incorporated into the system, I would hope that everyone would welcome it. I take the point, however, that if someone is to visit the home for the purpose of ascertaining its energy efficiency, it would be the best use of time and expenditure were an examination of the state of the property and a structural survey also done. That leads me to my next point. The House has a responsibility, as do the Government, to protect people from themselves to a degree. I find incredible the number of people in this country who still buy homes—the biggest financial transaction in their lives—without having a survey done. The only surveys that they have done are by the building societies, and we know how peripheral those can be. If we ask people to engage in a process with that amount of financial commitment, without also requiring them to have a survey completed, we would be failing in our duty as parliamentarians, and the Government would also be failing in their duty. Therefore, a system that requires a survey to be done is sensible.
	For those reasons and good principles, a system of HIPs, with HCRs as part of it, seemed to me an appropriate way forward. As well as agreeing to the principle of the Government's proposal, I also believed that it was right to consider how it would be implemented. Throughout the process, especially in the Bill's Committee stage, I engaged the Minister in debate and asked for proper pilots to be carried out. If the Government's statement today means that we will have a proper dry run, a proper look at what will happen, and an opportunity to iron out some of the wrinkles inevitable in any scheme when it is first implemented, I will welcome that. I will not, however, welcome a decision that ultimately means that we do not get the principle of HIPs with HCRs as part of a mandatory process. I will accept the Government's proposal if an eventual move to mandatory HCRs is still very much on the table, and if the Government are prepared to give serious consideration—as the Minister has committed to do, although she has not committed to introduce the system—to including in the pilots, at least in some cases, an element of mandatory HCRs.
	There will be some potential difficulties when the scheme begins. Unlike Conservative Members, however, I have some faith in markets. The people engaged in the process will adapt and change, and all the complaints from the Council of Mortgage Lenders about the dual cost of valuations will melt away. Magically, valuations will appear in most cases and will be co-ordinated with surveys done as part of HCRs. Ultimately, we will find that there is one process, and that lenders who refuse to accept that the introduction of HIPs and HCRs has changed the way in which we buy and sell houses in this country will go out of business. Those who want to stay in business will adapt to the new system, and we will not find that there are two charges up front for valuations.
	We have heard all the scare stories about £1,000 upfront, but we know that those are nonsense. What will happen is that HIP providers will come forward who will only charge people when the house is sold. How do we know that that will happen? Maria Coleman, who ran the trial scheme in Bristol—which, I understand is still running— came to a deal with all those engaged in the process and the charge was made only at the end of that process. As I said, I have some faith in markets—I am surprised that Conservative Members do not—and they will adapt when the changes come about.

Michael Wills: There have been a good many scare stories about the effect that HIPs might have had on the housing market. As my hon. Friend well knows, a number of different factors affect the state of the market, including real interest rates, nominal interest rates and disposable incomes. How important does he think the effect of HIPs would have been in comparison with those of all the other factors?

Clive Betts: I think that the most important factors are the stability of the economy, and confidence that that stability will be maintained in the future. The finding from the Oxford survey that HIPs would have a massive effect on gross domestic product and jobs was entirely predicated on a 10 per cent. fall in the number of housing transactions. The figure was dragged out of thin air; there was no proper assessment. What was said was simply that if there were a 10 per cent. fall, that would be the consequence—which is fine, but it does not mean that HIPs would bring about the 10 per cent. fall in the first place.
	We must ensure that the content of HIPs is as useful as possible to both seller and buyer. I have some sympathy with what Opposition Members say about that in their motion. If they really fear that the content is not adequate, and if it is true that more information about electrical installations is needed, I support them. If we are to introduce this document, it is important that we get it right.
	I think that HIPs should also include information about the security of homes. Even if that were not mandatory, sellers could state: "This is the information that we have about the security of our homes." They could say whether burglar alarms and locks had been installed and whether their homes met standards set by the Association of Chief Police Officers. If they chose not to include such information, that would say a fair amount about the state of their homes as well. There could be a section dealing with fire safety, which again would not need to be mandatory. Those who wanted to include the information could do so very clearly, and buyers would observe either that it was there or that it was not.
	If a trial helped us to get the content right, it would be beneficial. I am not sure where the Opposition stand on the matter, because their motion states that they want HIPs to contain even more information. If we ensured that the content was right, would they support HIPs? That is the implication of their motion, but it is not what they have said today. At the breakfast meeting that I attended last week with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), he agreed that there should be a paid-for dry run in a part of the country for the introduction of HIPs on a mandatory basis, with mandatory home condition reports. If that is still his position I support him, because I think that it would be quite a good idea to try out the system to see if it worked, and I believe that the markets would adapt to it.
	I hope that the Government have not walked away from HIPs completely. If they are signalling that there is to be a delay, that there are to be trials, that the mandatory scheme is still on the table and that there is a possibility of mandatory dry runs and pilots for HCRs in some parts of the country, I am prepared to go along with that. During the debate, I have heard nothing from the Opposition parties about how they would reform the process of buying and selling houses. If they are telling the country that the current process is perfect, my constituents and many others would be interested to hear their defence of a system that most people would not be prepared to defend.
	I want HIPs and HCRs to be introduced because I think that they are right in principle. I want them to be implemented properly and to operate efficiently and effectively before too long, because I believe that that would benefit all our constituents.

Bob Neill: I am grateful and relieved to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to be able to make my first speech in the House during this debate. Indeed, after last Wednesday's events I am grateful and relieved that there is a debate for me to speak in.
	I begin my speech with mixed feelings—in particular, feelings of both humility and sadness. I say that, of course, in relation to my predecessor, the right hon. Eric Forth. It is not easy to follow someone who became a legend in the House in his own lifetime. He was an exceptional parliamentarian, someone who was passionate about the House and passionate about the defence of its rights, as he was passionate about the rights and freedoms of the individual. He was passionate about the integrity of the democratic and legislative process. If he sometimes made himself less than popular on Friday mornings in that regard, it was because he believed in the importance of making any measure presented to the House subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. It would be interesting to know what he might have said had he been here to contribute to this debate.
	I must also express a measure of sadness, because Eric was a good friend to me, as is his wife, Carol, who many hon. Members will know was a great support in all that he did. He had many friends among right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House. He also had many friends in the constituency of Bromley and Chislehurst. Despite the myth that he assiduously cultivated to the contrary, he was a very dedicated constituency MP.
	It is very difficult for me to fill his shoes and stand in his place. I can endeavour only to do my best. Members will have their own recollections of Eric and his endeavours in the House, and many of the tributes paid to him were accepted on all sides. I particularly liked one tribute to the effect that Eric
	"regularly made a lot of mediocre people very angry. He was a wasp in the jar of public life and a first-class nuisance."
	He would have liked and appreciated those sentiments and the spirit with which they were expressed. It sums up what he believed was his duty as an MP—to say what he believed without fear or favour. We all know that he certainly did that throughout his entire career here.
	By way of a final tribute to Eric, I can say two further things. He was a legendary debater, as I know from observing some of his debates on television. Many Members will recall his sparring across the Chamber with the late Robin Cook. Many people I spoke to during the by-election campaign commented on the ironic tragedy of those two great parliamentarians being taken from us prematurely. Secondly, in summation, my ultimate tribute to Eric is to express my sadness that I am here in his place rather than joining him here.
	Given the past few weeks, Bromley and Chislehurst may not be wholly unknown to right hon. and hon. Members and I am certainly grateful to my hon. Friends who took the opportunity to make their acquaintance with the constituency. The area is described in a well known reference book as a classic piece of London suburbia. I might take issue with that a little, because it does not do justice to the diversity of the constituency or to suburbia itself. The truth is that it is part of Kent and many of my constituents regard themselves as inhabitants of Kent as much as of London. Over the years, the area was eaten up by the growth of the metropolis and the advance of the railways.
	A range of communities live within the area. To the north is the village of Mottingham. Moving down towards Chislehurst, originally a village on one of the main roads towards Maidstone and we move through the former garden suburb of Bickley to the old market town of Bromley, which was once a summer residence of the bishops of Rochester. It grew into a major commercial centre, as it happily remains today, based on the main railway line to London. We then move on to the suburbs of Hayes and the village of Keston.
	Over the years, the area has attracted a variety of residents. I am told that W. G. Grace lived in Mottingham and, while I was canvassing, I discovered at the northern tip of the constituency the house in which he lived. I also discovered that he had a total score in first-class matches of 55,213. Now that is a result! I am conscious that I am going to have to up my run rate a little if I am to match that.
	Chislehurst was at one time home to Emperor Napoleon III during his exile in this country. He was attracted, apparently, by its easy rail access to London—plus ça change, some might say. A later inhabitant was Richmal Crompton and many people say that characters and places in the "Just William" books can be identified in Chislehurst to this day. One story was entitled something like "William Gets By" and, after the by-election, I have some sympathy with that sentiment; indeed, I remember thinking that I should re-read that story.
	Bromley was home to H. G. Wells who, happily from my point of view, did not have as lasting an impact on the political philosophy of its residents as he might have done. Even more dramatically, the place was home to Prince Peter Kropotkin, author of the theory of anarchism.
	On a different tack, William Pitt the Younger had his home at Holmwood in the southern end of the constituency, and it is particularly relevant, with the anniversary of the abolition of slavery coming up, that it was in the gardens there that he and William Wilberforce talked about Wilberforce's proposals to abolish the slave trade.
	So my constituency has had a pretty varied and lively past—not entirely typical of suburbia, I would submit. Of course, its present-day occupants and residents come from a diverse background, too. What they have in common, as well as that dual identity between London and Kent, is that they are the people who through their skills and hard work are the engine that keeps London the economic powerhouse and centre that it is. That is true of all suburbia, and the contribution of its inhabitants to the capital and the nation is therefore often seriously underestimated.
	People choose to live in the outer-London suburbs because they believe that doing so gives them and their families and children a better quality of life. They are prepared to tolerate journeys on the railways that are probably marginally less stately or comfortable than those that Napoleon III enjoyed, precisely because they want to live in a community that has greenery and space. It was clear during the by-election campaign that that feature is threatened: people are concerned that the qualify of life in those suburbs is undermined by the pressures of building. They are not nimbies—they want their own children to have homes to live in—but they are concerned that the development of those new homes should be in the right place and should not take place at the cost of the existing environment.
	People are concerned about the cost of living in suburban London—for example transport costs, but also the costs of council tax and housing, which is why I wanted to speak in this debate—but above all they are concerned that a one-size-fits-all planning policy, coming from the Mayor of London, threatens to undo the benefits of the suburbs and not offer the advantages that might have been intended. That is a key issue for them, and they fear that they will see more and more in-fill development, which cannot be sustainable in the long term for anyone.
	One of my predecessors as the Member for the Bromley part of the constituency was, of course, the late Earl of Stockton, Harold Macmillan. Although I appreciate that I am more mature than some new entrants to the House, I cannot pretend that I remember him when he was Prime Minister, other than as a black-and-white figure flickering on the television set in my parents' home. However, as I became involved in politics as a student, his legacy was still a fresh and cogent one, which has remained with me for a long time.
	I have re-read Alistair Horne's remarkable biography of Macmillan, and he made the point that, among Macmillian's many qualities, those that stood out were his ability to think forwards—to relate the basic principles of his philosophy and of his party, when he was its leader, to the challenges both of today and of tomorrow—and his great skill in restating those principles in terms of the issues of today and in the language of today, tackling at that time the growth of the post-war mass consumer society. That need is as relevant now as ever, so I am glad to say that I think that the spirit of Harold Macmillan lives on among my right hon. and hon. Friends in the House and elsewhere.
	Of course, Macmillan's first great contribution in redefining the post-war Conservative party was in housing. It was Macmillan who set out practical and deliverable means of increasing the supply of housing and of advancing home ownership. That is something about which my constituents feel very passionately indeed, and that sentiment applies right across the breadth of society.
	The London assembly, of which I currently have the honour to be a member, carried out a survey of key public sector workers as long ago as 2001. That survey identified that some 77 per cent. of the people who drive our buses, who are our police officers, who are our teachers and who work in the medical profession, such as nurses—those who keep the city ticking along—had an aspiration to own their own homes. It was the inability to purchase in London that often caused those people to leave the capital. When considering the home information pack proposal, I asked whether it would make it any easier for those people to achieve that aspiration. I will adhere to the convention and attempt to be as non-controversial as possible, but I regret to say that the evidence that I have received does not persuade me that that would be the case.
	In particular, I have, for obvious reasons, had more opportunity than most to talk to members of the general public in the past few months. Whenever the issue was raised—more often than one might think—on the doorstep, not one person had anything to say in favour of the proposals. They were not at all backwoodsmen but ordinary members of the public who aspire to encourage home ownership for their children and feel that the home information packs will be a hindrance, rather than a help. I take the point that there is always room for improvement in how we deal with home purchase and selling, but it is not an advance to identify the problem and come up with the wrong answer. That is what concerned the people I met about the Government's original proposals. They are concerned that inevitably—and despite all that we have heard in this debate—the costs will be passed on to the purchaser, which will bear especially harshly on first-time buyers, who will often have to commission their own surveys because they are likely to borrow more than the 80 per cent. of the value of the property that is likely to be the cut-off point, and will need greater comfort because they will not have a track record with the financial institutions. The changes will make the task of first-time buyers harder. Those in Bromley already have to raise more than the normally accepted rate in terms of the earnings to borrowing ratio and the proposals will make that harder.
	It is also clear that the proposals will not assist in the matter of structural subsidence. There was much publicity in my constituency recently when some homes in the centre of Bromley disappeared into a hole in the ground. The incident also caused the main line out of Victoria and the Eurostar to be suspended for some time. The proposals would not have assisted those people. They will, however, pose an additional bureaucratic burden.
	I have considered the regulations and the explanatory notes, which run to more than 104 pages of text. I accept the genuineness of the desire to make home purchase less stressful, but I am not sure that ploughing through this legislation would make it less stressful for anyone. As well as speaking to ordinary residents, I have taken the opportunity to speak to professionals, and I would not sneer at their views. Those who have had 20 or 30 years of experience as conveyancing or trust solicitors say that they have a real fear that the proposals will cause fewer houses to come on to the market. They are not whipping up a froth in support of vested interests: those to whom I talked struck me as persons of integrity who gave me the benefit of their own empirical experience. That should be of value in deciding the best approach to this issue.
	I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. Eric Forth's favourite word was "why". I suspect that he would have applied that test to these proposals and I fear that he would have drawn the conclusion that he had not had a satisfactory answer. From all that I have heard, I have not had one either.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I should like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for his excellent maiden speech. It was marvellous to hear him talk about Eric Forth. I had many arguments with him, but no one can deny that he was a stalwart of this House, or that he did it great service. I know that the hon. Gentleman's words will have been received very well.
	Before I make my contribution on HIPs, I must first declare my interests. I am a chartered engineer and a fellow of the following organisations: the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the Institute of Electrical Engineers, the Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors, the Institution of Engineering Designers and the City and Guilds Institute. At various times, I am required to provide information to those bodies, and I have participated in a number of their campaigns in respect of various Bills.
	I am also chair of the all-party building services engineering group, which receives support from the Heating and Ventilation Contractors Association. I host meetings in the House for women in plumbing that are sponsored by the Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering. I chair the all-party group for construction skills and training, which receives support from the Construction Industry Training Board. For many years I have worked for specialist electrical contractors and for the Electrical Contractors Association. I sit on the board of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, whose membership includes people working in the housing industry. I am also one of those currently undergoing training so that I can provide home inspection surveys.
	I am a member of the Engineering Technology Board, which regulates academic standards in the engineering sector and which will also be responsible for regulating the course provided by Reading university. I sit on the board's panel that represents the interests of registrants, many of whom have qualified already as home inspectors. In the past eight months, I have met all the chief executives in the sector skills council who represent the interests of companies in the engineering sector, including those that have been heavily involved in giving thousands of people the opportunity to undertake the home inspector's role.
	In addition, I work with all the engineering institutions that have a vested interest in promoting engineering and the development of vocational and professional standards. I believe that the HIP, and the home condition report in particular, offered an excellent opportunity to improve housing stock over time.
	It would be useful to compare the HIP with the MOT test for cars. The MOT was introduced after many years of motoring disasters. The Tories have given various reasons in the debate as to why HIPs should be dismissed, and I have no doubt that they would give the same reasons to reject the MOT if that test were to be introduced today.
	The same arguments apply. The MOT test comes at an additional cost that is a burden for car owners, and when the test was introduced the serious problem was that too few people were qualified to carry it out. However, would we seriously suggest today that we should not have the MOT test, given that it has led to significant safety improvements in car production and use? We would not, as the MOT test is a very sensible intervention.
	I believe that the HIP is the equivalent of an MOT for houses. It will cost money, but the aim is to ensure that people have safer homes to live in and understand the condition of the houses that they buy. That is what we expect to happen with cars, which cost only a fraction of the price of houses, so why should we not get the same help when we purchase a home?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made excellent speeches earlier, and I wholeheartedly support what they said. Like them, I am deeply concerned at the fact that the HIP is not to be introduced next year.
	Like my Back-Bench hon. Friends, I support the cause of making home condition reports compulsory, and I do so for the following reasons. When the Housing Bill was introduced, it was argued that HIPs would deliver:
	"Transaction Improvements by reducing the abortive costs to consumers and the industry as well as reducing the number of failed transactions caused by survey or valuation inspection findings."
	It was claimed that they would also deliver:
	"Housing Stock Condition Improvements by a reduction in the incidence of unexpected repair bills and encouraging better maintenance of homes."
	It was also said that they would create:
	"Greater Consumer Choice by reducing the entry costs to first time buyers and creating a market of serious sellers."
	Many colleagues have discussed transaction improvements and greater consumer choice, but I want to concentrate briefly on housing stock condition and the importance of the home condition report. It has rightly been pointed out that many first-time buyers do not engage their own surveyor to assess the condition of the property that they are purchasing, and in many cases they will be purchasing a property with a number of costly problems. Unless the previous owner has taken the time to ensure that all the work undertaken in their home has been carried out by a competent person, the buyer must beware.
	Far too many people buy properties with serious problems. They might face serious problems with their electrical distribution capacity. That might mean that they cannot add anything more to their existing electrical circuits than they already have, or that that they get shocks from systems in their kitchen, or that their lights go out whenever they switch on a radio, simply because their electrical board has not been updated—and does not meet any of the standards introduced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the past few years.
	More worryingly, people might have serious problems with their gas supply and the gas distribution in their home. Unless they have commissioned a survey to determine that, they will find that out the first time someone comes to inspect their boiler. I have spoken to many people who received a nasty shock when their boiler was inspected—not an electrical shock, but a serious shock of a different kind when the inspector said, "I'm now going to switch off your boiler and your gas supply because you're not safe." People say in reply, "Well, I bought it only a few weeks ago; it's a new boiler." A new boiler is not necessarily a safe gas installation; it is not a safe gas installation when it has not been installed by a competent person.
	As much as we would like to think that every such person who comes to our homes is competent to carry out the jobs that we pay them to do, none of us are that naive. Lots of people who come into our homes, and go into the homes of our constituents, profess to be something that they are not. They do not carry industry competence certificates to demonstrate that they are capable of doing the job. It is not only the person who owns that house at that time who suffers as a consequence of that: so, too, does the person who will buy that house in the future.
	Let us talk about drainage. Most of us take drainage for granted; we flush the toilet and everything disappears. But that is not always the case. Some people knowingly sell a home that has serious drainage problems. The buyer does not know about that if they have chosen not to have a survey done. The home condition report allows them to know about that, because an assessment of the drainage will have been carried out—and drainage is very expensive. It can cost people tens of thousands of pounds to correct a drain, even when they have insurance cover of the drains within their property. More often than not, the problem is outside the property, and they do not have insurance to cover that. The whole of their drive could be taken up, right back to the main road, and that could cost £10,000. The cost of this report is negligible in comparison, even if the purchaser has to bear it.
	What about construction? Many Members have talked about subsidence. As an engineer, I like subsidence; it provides me with a great intellectual challenge, and I have never yet come across an instance of subsidence that I cannot sort out—but that is me. I have looked into the qualifications of Members of this House, and none of them has any of the qualifications that I have, so I am okay on the subject of subsidence.  [Interruption.] It is a shame; it is a great shame. I am okay on that, but most people's biggest worry is subsidence. They are very frightened by the possibility of subsidence, because subsidence means tens of thousands of pounds in costs. It does not mean that to me, but it does mean that to most Members of this House.
	When surveyors carry out home condition reports, they do not come in with no knowledge whatsoever. They are not going to see subsidence and then not tell people about it. We are professional engineers, and the people who take this course will be committed to high standards. If they are not going to exhibit high standards, they will be fined. They could be charged and they will be brought into litigation, which would be counterproductive, so they do not want that. Although they might not be able to do anything about a particular incidence of subsidence, they are not going to fail to point it out. Subsidence is pretty obvious—it is not a small crack in the wall that occurs as a result of drying out. It is serious problem, and surveyors will see it, just as I could see it immediately if I walked into a Member's home that was suffering from it. I would not fail to point it out, because I am a chartered professional engineer and we are required to point it out. Currently, first-time buyers do not get that service if they cannot afford the privilege of accessing that information. Such access is what we need.
	The home condition report is not just of use to the person who is purchasing the property; it could save the life of the person selling it, which is why it is important and why we need it. There are too many rogue traders working in this area. Far too many householders enlist the services of people who are supposed to be competent, but are not. I am not going to blame householders for doing so, because the vast majority of us are completely ignorant of this world. We cannot know everything, but we have got to enlist people whom we can trust to help us get good standards at home.
	Let us say that I sell my house tomorrow and a surveyor assesses it—looks at my gas and electrical installations, at my property's construction and at the drainage—and says, "This isn't right and we are concerned about it; we want to look at your certification." Then, on my handing them the certification, they say, "Well, it looks pretty, but it is worth nothing—you must have the property surveyed again." I would want to know that. I have got three children, and I would want to know whether my property was safe. I would then go back to the person who did the work—or try to—and say, "Come on, give me the correct documentation."
	However, most people in that situation will be in for a very nasty shock. They will find out that those who did the work were not competent to do so and cannot supply the certification. At that point, they will learn pretty quickly who is competent to assess home installations. That is great for the building service industry, which is bending over backwards to ensure that only legitimate people undertake work in homes. The big issue that we Members of Parliament deal with is consumer protection and consumers who are being ripped off by unethical traders. This measure—this intervention—has helped to address that problem enormously.
	So, like many of my colleagues here today, I regret the fact that the home condition report is not going to be in the home information pack. I understand why it is so important, and what a missed opportunity this is for consumer safety. I know, speaking for all of my colleagues without exception, that they will regret this, but what they will do is wait. If it is a requirement to provide a set number of people to do the job, that will happen, because we want a safe industry. We want to improve the standards of homes and to make them safer for people. That is what this is all about.
	I have heard some pretty adverse comments, but I have not heard Opposition Members talk about consumer safety, which is a pity. I cannot think of any better vehicle than this one to deliver improvements in consumer safety quickly. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look again at making home condition reports mandatory, because there is an imperative to do so. I am happy to wait while we sort out the number of people required, invigilation standards and so on, but there is an industry waiting to do this work, and a consumer protection imperative for us to deal with this issue.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) spoke for 15 minutes; I shall speak for a mere five to try to allow my colleagues time to get in.
	I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I was also heavily involved in the gestation of the home information pack measures as the official Opposition spokesman on the Homes Bill in 2000, the first that came before us on the matter. I pay tribute to the work done since by official Opposition spokesmen—my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), for Poole (Mr. Syms) and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who has valiantly campaigned on the issue and who made a very worthwhile speech today.
	We are where we are, but I agree with all who have said that we are in the worst of all possible worlds. We have half a compulsory measure, with all the costs that that will involve. For the sake of clarity, I shall quote the relevant paragraph of yesterday's written ministerial statement:
	"This means that the remaining aspects of Home Condition Reports will not be made mandatory from June next year, but HCRs will be authorised documents that sellers will be able to include in their packs."
	The sting in the tail comes next:
	"Mandatory HCRs will remain on the table if the industry fails to make a success of the roll out of HCRs."—[ Official Report, 18 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 13WS.]
	So, we really do not know where we are. We do not know whether they will be made mandatory or not.
	I wish to make what I think is a sensible suggestion. Let us leave the system as it is now proposed until the next general election. Let us see whether home information packs do the job that they are supposed to do. If they do, no doubt all parties will wish to include in their manifestos a promise to make HCRs mandatory. But if there are huge problems and if they have not done what they are supposed to do, I have no doubt that the Labour party, as well as my own, will run away from the idea as fast as they possibly can.
	I am interested in the costs and benefits. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who was quite right to identify the benefit as being about £1 million a day—some £365 million a year. He went on to say that no proper analysis has been done of the costs, but I shall give him some. The Government have produced figures on the sellers packs—official figures included in the explanatory notes to the last Bill—showing that the cost without the home condition report would have been £660 per pack, without value added tax. The cost of the home condition report is put at £400, and we could halve that for the environmental statement, which leaves the packs at about £460, or about £550 with VAT. Multiply that by the 1.2 million actual sales each year and we have a cost of about £650 million. In other words, there is a cost-benefit gap of about £300 million. For a benefit of £350 million, we are getting a cost of £300 million. What on earth is the sense of bringing in regulations that cost that amount for that benefit?
	There are a number of ways in which the Government could improve the housing market, which, on the basis of 1.2 million sales and average house prices, according to the Halifax, of £176,000, is a market of about £200 billion. There are several things in the market that they should consider. First, what should they do with the home condition inspectors currently under training? There are about 3,000 of them, and a lot are lowly paid people who have invested several thousand pounds of their own savings. They will not know today whether they should continue their training or not. I beg the Government to give those people a clear steer on what they should do.
	Other measures that the Government could consider include speeding up e-conveyancing and e-searches. The national information land register has been mentioned today, and of the 175 local authorities represented in the House, only 42 are properly e-enabled. Searches, more than anything else, hold up property transactions, and the Government could do a great deal in that respect. They should also look at estate agents. As has been said, they have a good association, but 30 per cent. of them are not members of it, and a number of that 30 per cent. are complete cowboys. Let us get the estate agents under control with proper regulations.
	The Government could do a number of things. They should look carefully at the whole market, if they want to interfere with it as they propose, with the buyer versus the seller, and remember the old maxim, caveat emptor. When buyers look at the packs they will think that they have everything on a plate, but there are still many problems that they will need to consider.
	There will be problems with the energy performance certificate and the Government should not underestimate them. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors estimates that the software will be correct for only 80 per cent. of houses and the Government will have more difficulty than they think in providing enough inspectors for the work.

Nia Griffith: I shall not repeat all the excellent points made by my hon. Friends, as there is little time left for the debate, so I shall focus on energy efficiency. I welcome the intention to include in HIPs information on energy efficiency, including information about how to cut fuel bills and carbon emissions. We are all becoming increasingly aware of the impact of carbon emissions on climate change, but in our busy lives we need reminders and incentives to encourage us to prioritise the issues. The concept of an energy performance certificate will help all home owners, vendors and purchasers alike, to focus on making their homes more energy-efficient.
	Viewing a house on a lovely warm day, such as today, it is easy to forget what it might be like in the middle of winter. First-time buyers in particular can find the whole process of buying a house such an ordeal, with so many different things to think about, that they often overlook the important issue of what the fuel bills are likely to be. It has been my experience as a vendor that hardly anybody looks at energy-saving features and few people ask what my fuel bills are.
	Information on energy efficiency is valuable to buyers, enabling them to make a realistic assessment of what their fuel bills are likely to be. It also allows them to make comparisons between the properties that they view. Furthermore, knowing that prospective purchasers will look at the energy efficiency information and compare the likely fuel costs of properties will act as an incentive to vendors to consider how they could make their home more energy efficient. Estate agents' publicity material will mention more than just double glazing in terms of energy efficiency. People will increasingly talk of homes as "cheap to heat" or "expensive to heat". As that information becomes more important to prospective purchasers, it is likely to affect property prices; good energy features will be appreciated for the fuel bill savings that they can bring.
	In the course of my adult life, I have bought and moved into eight homes, which usually involved improving older properties. I know how overwhelming the process can be, and the energy efficiency information in the pack will provide a useful checklist for people who are thinking about how to improve their property.
	Not only will people think about how to insulate their homes better and reduce fuel demand, but the knowledge that when they sell their home it will be judged on its energy efficiency will act as an incentive to consider installing microgeneration equipment for heat or electricity. Only a year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) chose to use his success in the private Members' Bill ballot to introduce the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill. At that time, few people were talking about energy efficiency or microgeneration, so it is to his credit, with the support of the Minister for Energy, that those issues have gained so much prominence. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning for her genuine commitment to try to tackle climate change in her areas of responsibility. It is to her credit that we are even talking about energy performance certificates.
	The inclusion of energy efficiency information for prospective buyers will influence builders. When they are thinking about how to market their properties and steal a march on their competitors, they will give much more consideration to including features that enable them to boast of excellent energy efficiency ratings. That could have a significant impact on their choice of materials, the design of the layout of the house to make the best use of sunlight and the microgeneration equipment that could be included. If we are going to be serious about tackling climate change, it is no good just making grand speeches. It is a concern that should be addressed by all Departments across Government, not just by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry.
	I welcome the inclusion in home information packs of energy efficiency as a significant step forward in increasing awareness of what we can do to make our homes more energy efficient. I hope that the inclusion of energy efficiency in HIPs will serve as an excellent example to all Departments of how measures to encourage energy efficiency can and should be included in all areas where the Government have influence.

Angela Watkinson: In the few moments that remain, I wonder whether I could reduce my speech to a few questions to the Minister, which I hope he will be able to deal with in his summing-up. They relate in particular to the home condition reports, which I assume from the statement yesterday that the Government will press ahead with and endeavour to make mandatory in due course.
	For how long would the information in home condition reports remain valid? Would the vendor have to renew the information at, say, three-monthly intervals? If the property is taken off the market for more than 28 days, the pack has to be renewed. If the details are deemed to need updating when the property is off the market for a month, for how long are they deemed not to have changed while it is on the market? For example, would a two-year-old home condition report still be valid if the property had remained on the market during that entire period? What buyer could trust it? What seller would volunteer that information if it were not mandatory?
	That could mean that the price of the property would have to be increased periodically to absorb the recurring cost of updated home condition reports. It is clear that the Government still intend to introduce home condition reports, but not yet. The usual strategy to make a house more attractive for sale is to reduce the price. Far from ensuring that the home buying and selling process becomes more certain, transparent and consumer friendly, while reducing stress and the number of failed transactions, that will create an additional complication.
	How many of the idiosyncrasies that all homes have would a seller be required to declare? Should there be caveats such as the fact that television reception on Five is poor because the house is in a bit of a valley, the radiator in bedroom 2 does not work unless it is given a kick, or the oven is slow? Every home has a multitude of idiosyncrasies. Into what detail does a home condition report have to go? What about things such as squirrels, birds or even bats in the loft, or foxes under the garden shed?
	More important, what would happen if that information were omitted? Who will verify the information that is provided? What will be the status of the information and what if there is a dispute between the seller and the inspector as to the content of the report? What obligation is there on a buyer to have their finances in order and to be in a position to exchange contracts when an offer is accepted? What bar is there to prevent a seller from accepting a different offer while the sale to the first buyer is still in progress? What redress will a buyer have if a HIP is found to have been seriously misleading? Many people would be unable to afford to risk legal action when they have just incurred the considerable costs of moving home, but if the HIPs are not binding in law and caveat emptor still applies, there seems to be little point in them.
	The Department's statement says that the third aim of the HIP programme is
	"to encourage and support long term transformation of the home buying and selling industry by introducing greater transparency and competition to drive down costs and incentivise better service and clearer redress for customers."
	It is gobbledegook and I urge the Minister to abandon the entire scheme.

Robert Syms: First, I draw Members' attention to my interests in the Register of Members' Interests. I do not think that I have an interest, but given the way that interventions go in such debates one is never quite sure, so I think I had better declare it.
	I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on an impressive maiden speech. It included some fond stories of Eric Forth and Robin Cook, and a tour of his constituency, which, as he said, we have all got to know over recent weeks in this hot weather. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing a lot more from my hon. Friend, who I am sure will make a great contribution in future years in this House.
	We have had an interesting debate. Some of us have lived with the issue of HIPs for a considerable time, and we sometimes wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, thinking about the consequences of the measure. The Opposition's position has been entirely consistent for the past half dozen years.  [ Interruption. ] Of course, that is a great relief. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, if one compares the costs for the 1 million to 1.5 million houses that are sold every year with the costs of the current system, one can see that the sums do not add up. Under the current system, someone can market their house or test the market at no cost to themselves. Under the Government proposals, however, there will be a substantial cost. Indeed, there will be a cost even if someone does not sell their home. Some people, of course, are unable to do so. We discussed all those matters when the Housing Bill was in Committee, and I am sure that we are on the right side of the argument.
	I am a little confused about the Government's thinking. I listened carefully, as I always do, to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who made a good case for the Government's proposals. The Government are in a pickle, because if they want home condition reports to be successful they must build sufficient capacity. They will only do so if they make the scheme compulsory and specify a date for its introduction. Essentially, 7,000 surveyors must be trained, so there is a long lead-in time. If the system is voluntary, as many hon. Members have said, most people will not be prepared to pay extra. Why would someone leave their job and spend £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 on training if they are not sure of their prospects?
	The Government have reduced capacity, because people who were thinking about training have realised that what seemed like a good career a few days ago no longer seems as good. The scheme proposed to include home condition reports in a computerised system or databank. Who will operate such a system if there is only a small number of such reports? Once again, capacity will be reduced. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) argued in Committee that if the scheme were worth while it should be voluntary, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), the then Housing Minister, said that housing is largely about chains, so HIPs would work only if the home condition report were compulsory for everyone. The moment that compulsion was removed, he argued, the benefits of HIPs would end and the system would fail to speed up. There will be problems in June 2007, because there are not sufficient surveyors to administer a new system introduced in a peak period for the housing market. The Government therefore decided to make the scheme voluntary, thus reducing capacity and probably preventing home condition reports from working.

John Gummer: Was not all that information available to the Government from the outset? Experts warned of problems, and many of us wrote to them again and again to explain the facts. What has changed to make them introduce a voluntary scheme when they believed that it was manifestly wrong to do so at the outset?

Robert Syms: I can only speculate about the reasons for the change. Third-term Governments in difficulty start to look for snags ahead. The housing market is important for growth, and I am sure that the Treasury has taken a view about the benefits and disbenefits of the initiative. Decisions have been made on other issues, and I suspect that they, too, are part of the reason. The rationale of HIPs, with which I disagree, has been destroyed to some extent by the removal of compulsion from a large part of the pack. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made an important point. He said that if an inspector is going to a home to prepare a home condition report, he can do the energy performance certificate at the same time. If the procedures are separated, the cost of the energy performance certificate increases, so the benefits of the scheme are reduced. The Government have some more serious thinking to do about whether to proceed with the other elements. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) posed many sensible questions about whether the remaining elements of the HIP would stand without the home condition report.
	Returning to the point about the people who have trained, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who had to leave the Chamber earlier, gave me an e-mail that he had received, which provides the perfect example. Guy Frazier of West Sussex has been doing a course with SAVA college, which I think is associated with Reading university. He says he has spent almost £10,000 on the course and on travelling backwards and forwards. He is £10,000 in debt and is very concerned about what that investment will bring him. I therefore make a plea to the Government. Instead of being spent on publicity, perhaps some money should go to supporting those who have taken the Government at face value, undertaken training and put themselves in debt. We heard earlier that although only 230-odd people have qualified, there are about 3,000 people under training. Unless they have some measure of certainty, they may feel that they have lost their money.
	We have had an interesting debate, with good contributions from several hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich set out what he saw as the rationale for the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) reminded us of the good sense of the people of Minehead and his various surveys in his constituency. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) argued the case for the scheme. I believe that he also served on the Committee that considered the Bill which resulted in the Housing Act 2004, so he is a veteran of such debates.
	The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) spoke passionately about her concerns and about safety in the home. The House listened carefully, particularly to her CV and all her qualifications and engineering experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, who is a veteran of the 2000 Bill, presented some compelling figures. The debate continued with the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) setting out her views, and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) articulating some important questions, which I hope the Minister is able to answer.
	The rushed decision, just before the recess, to change the nature of the game has probably raised more questions than it has provided answers, especially for many of those who are training in the hope of becoming home inspectors. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he can flesh out the Government's thinking. It is clear that the scheme as it is constructed at present will not work. At the beginning of the debate, we heard from the Minister for Housing and Planning about trials in areas, but home condition reports cannot be compulsory in some areas but not in others.

Rob Marris: Why not?

Robert Syms: Because people do not buy homes in regions. They buy homes on a national basis. The scheme will not work without a national chain.

Rob Marris: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that under the Law of Property Act 1925 covering England and Wales, which came into effect on 1 January 1926, not all areas were areas of compulsory registration? It varied round the country for the following 70 years. We had a differential system then.

Robert Syms: The hon. Gentleman has waited years to make that intervention in the House. I am glad I gave him the opportunity to do so, which he did very speedily. I will read it carefully tomorrow and perhaps give him a more considered reply.
	Home information packs are an important matter that will impact on all home buyers and sellers. I do not think the Government have got it right. We were right in our initial opposition. The Government have moved away from their original proposals and will have to think carefully about the viability of the whole scheme. We have had an interesting debate in an interesting week, and I look forward to the Minister's remarks.

Phil Woolas: This has been a fascinating debate, because it has flushed out the three types of Conservative Member in this Chamber. First, there are real "conservatives", who oppose change because they oppose change. That position is not intellectually coherent, but it is at least understandable and consistent. Secondly, there are those who want the status quo because their mates have told them that it is best. Again, that is not intellectually coherent, but I suppose that it is at least politically consistent. Finally, there are those who frighten me, and they want the unfettered free market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has pointed out, one would not buy a car without an MOT or a service logbook, but one would sell a car without an MOT or a service logbook if the market regulation allowed. The Conservatives who frighten me are like Del Boy's friend Boycie, who would sell a car without that guarantee.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), whom I welcomed into this House—not least because it got him off the airwaves—falls into the last category of the unfettered free marketeer. Perhaps we should not be surprised. One amusing thing to do in the evening when waiting for a vote is to read the writings of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who has worked for the BBC—as did I—and still writes for  The Times. This is what he said about the housing market in 2002:
	"the housing market is a high stakes poker game".
	With great enthusiasm, he advocated approaching home selling and buying like a gambler with a hand of cards:
	"Nerve shredding as the process can be, poker has proved an invaluable help because it teaches you to wait, as the antes are raked up by the other players and your reserves of patience (and money) dwindle."
	He is consistent in his attitude to the housing market: let the unfettered free market decide.
	The hon. Gentleman recently wrote about his 1995 biography of his then hero, Michael Portillo, which was subtitled, "The future of the right". He wrote that it
	"ranks up there with Robert Maxwell's life of Ceausescu and David Steel's moving 1985 manifesto for government,  Partners in One Nation, as a work whose prescience left just a little to be desired."
	I suggest that his predictions about the future of the housing market under our policy will be just as accurate.

John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: When I have finished exposing some more of the points of view of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—although I will not talk about Europe, because I have only six minutes and it would take an hour to expose the difficulties on that subject.
	Conservative Members have said that the policy is dead, but they have also tried to criticise it. Either it is dead or it is not dead, and I do not think that there is an alternative—if anyone has found an alternative, I would be grateful to hear about it. All the evidence suggests that buyers and sellers are unhappy with the way in which properties are bought and sold. In many cases, people lose hundreds of pounds on abortive surveys and searches, and those who are least able to afford such costs often bear the brunt.
	The current system is not working and consumers are dissatisfied, which is hardly surprising. There is currently an almost complete lack of transparency. Key information about a property becomes available only after terms have been agreed. In the meantime, people make an offer based on limited information and immediately begin paying out for searches, surveys, legal fees and other documents. If problems then come to light and the transaction fails, those costs are all wasted. The costs are often duplicated, too, when another potential buyer pays out for the same information all over again.
	Another cause of transaction failure is the length of time that it takes for the process to go through, and the consequential increased risks of things going wrong. The process in this country takes twice as long as the European average. Delays, which have a knock-on effect through the chain, often result from buyers and sellers up and down the chain asking for and obtaining information on a piecemeal basis. Only when every link of the chain is in place can those involved be confident that their sale or purchase will go through. The Government's research shows that almost 30 per cent. of transactions fail after terms have been agreed, and more than £350 million a year is wasted in this way. Those costs are extremely serious for the people who bear them—for hard-working families who need to move home and for young people trying to get on to the first rung of the housing ladder. They are also a cost to the economy as a whole and represent a substantial wasted resource.
	In those circumstances, no one can seriously argue that the market is working well and should be left alone—but that is what the Opposition want us to do. HIPs will give buyers the information they need in order to make an informed choice about the property before they make an offer, rather than later when large amounts of time and money have been spent trying to get hold of it for a purchase that may ultimately fail. More information up front will reduce delays and failures, cut duplicated costs and help to reduce the number of failed transactions, which cost consumers £1 million a day.
	Moreover, as my hon. Friends have said, first-time buyers stand to benefit most from the policy. One of the main benefits of HIPs is that those first-time buyers will not have to spend hundreds of pounds on surveys and searches, and then find that the money that they have struggled to save has been completely wasted when their purchase collapses.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making the case that was made when the Government introduced this policy. He is saying that it is necessary—indeed, essential—for the market, but he is not explaining why the Government have changed their mind, nor is he giving us any projection of the effect that this is likely to have on its success. Can he give us a notional view of the number of inspectors who will be required under the new scheme, and what progress is being made to train them to ensure that it works?

Phil Woolas: I will tell the House why the Government made the written ministerial statement yesterday—because we are determined that the policy will work and we will not play politics with buying and selling people's homes. We brought that statement to the House before the recess because we wished to be transparent and to send out the message, not only to the House but to the public, that we believe—on the basis of the advice and evidence that we have—that risks might well have been involved if the 1 June 2007 deadline for the entire pack had been stuck to. This is the right thing to do, to allow time for proper trials so that we can get the policy exactly right. If the market makes it work, we will have HIPs; if the market fails, we hold back the mandatory card. That is a responsible policy.
	I pay tribute to the new Member, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and wholeheartedly endorse his remarks about Eric, not only as a parliamentarian but as a Minister. He may be pleased to know that my own constituency benefited hugely from Eric's time as a Minister. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Robin Cook. The two men were great debaters in this House. I applaud him for his maiden speech. He may not have been an A-list candidate but he is an A-list Member of Parliament, and I welcome him to the House. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear.]
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby made a passionate, informed and typically knowledgeable speech. She drew our attention to the parallel with the MOT certificate, and clearly showed why she supports HIPs.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) asked us to consider sensitively the request for pilots and how the trials could be conducted. We will do that. He also said that he had faith in markets. I endorse that point and find it surprising that the Conservative party has lost its way with regard to its view about the markets and their contribution.
	The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said that he had been listening to the general public and estate agents. He is obviously concerned about the policy. He asked about rented properties for licence. We are considering the matter. The details have to be worked out and information will be forthcoming.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) spoke wisely, considered the policy in the round, made some pertinent criticisms of the official Opposition's policy and asked for more details about trials, which are important.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) welcomed the policy, as he has done consistently over months and years, and raised his concerns about the timing of the introduction of the mandatory elements in the packs. My hon. Friends and I will examine his words closely.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made an important point about regulating estate agents. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) reminded the House of the difficulties, stress and trauma of buying a house. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) asked some pertinent questions. I can provide more details in writing but the essential answer to her question—

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31(2) (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House believes that reforms to home buying and selling need to be designed around the interests of consumers; further believes that Home Information Packs (HIPs) will cut waste and duplication and speed up transactions for consumers; applauds the proposed inclusion in HIPs of Energy Performance Certificates which will give buyers and sellers vital information about the energy efficiency of homes and practical suggestions about how to cut fuel bills and carbon emissions; welcomes the Government's intention to carry out further testing of HIPs; and notes that the Government is working with industry to encourage the successful voluntary take-up of Home Condition Reports, retaining the option of a mandatory approach to ensure widespread take-up, and thus maximising the benefit for consumers.

Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill  [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Nick Ainger: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 15th June 2006 (Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the following order: new Clauses; new Schedules; Amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 22, Schedule 4 and Clauses 23 to 30; remaining proceedings on consideration.
	3. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion for this Order.
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion for this Order.
	Given the expedient way in which we dealt with the Bill in Committee, I have no doubt that we can do equally well in the two hours that we have allowed for the small number of amendments that have been selected and the hour allowed for Third Reading.

Cheryl Gillan: I have no objection to the timetable. Perhaps my only sadness is caused by the fact that the business was timetabled for today, and was moved so rapidly from tomorrow. I believe that when the business was originally announced we were to deal with Lords amendments to the Government of Wales Bill on Tuesday, enjoy a day's break to recover, and then deal with this Bill on Thursday. I can only say that it is a tribute to the Minister's—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Far too many conversations are taking place in the Chamber.

Cheryl Gillan: I was merely going to pay the Minister a compliment., Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very glad that you have called Members to order so that they can hear it. I am impressed that the Government Whips felt so confident about the ability of the Minister and civil servants, and of course myself, to dispatch the business in a civilised and adult fashion that they decided to schedule it for the day after the Government of Wales Bill.
	I can only apologise to colleagues who are tired of hearing the sound of my voice at the Dispatch Box, as well as the Minister's, but I have no intention of asking them to troop through the Lobbies—although I think that, given the heat outside, many of them would be quite happy to stay and debate the Bill for the rest of the afternoon and evening.
	I am happy to accede to the motion.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) may become used to this if she deals with Northern Ireland business. Statutory Instrument Committees often take place at the same time as parliamentary business relating to Northern Ireland. It has been a source of frustration to me that the timing of business sometimes falls in impossible ways.
	The Liberal Democrats consider the timing sufficient. Assuming that the Minister is willing to show humility and common sense, and to accept the sage guidance and counsel of the hon. Lady and of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), I am sure that we shall be finished in minutes rather than hours.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [ Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 2
	  
	General functions

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
	'(ca) keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of provision for those older people who are disabled.'.
	This is a simple amendment that I tabled in order to probe the Minister on two specific aspects of the Bill. I hope that the drafting will require the commissioner to give special consideration to disabled people when promoting best practice in the treatment of older people in Wales.
	I start by looking into the position of deaf people in Wales. The number of people in the UK estimated by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to be deaf or hard of hearing is a phenomenally large 8,954,000. Of those, 688,000 have severe hearing difficulties or are profoundly deaf. The RNID does not publish separate figures for Wales, which again poses the question of disaggregated statistics. My first question to the Minister is whether he will look into the opportunities afforded to the commissioner's office, his own office or, indeed, the Assembly, to produce accurate, separate disaggregated statistics, particularly on deaf and blind people in Wales.
	As it is not easy to get the statistics by a readily identifiable route, I was helped by the Library. It told my researcher, Guy L'Etang, that it had done some calculations based on the population of Wales and estimated that approximatelyI stress approximately440,000 people will be deaf or hard of hearing and that of those, 34,000 will have severe hearing difficulties or be profoundly deaf. As there is a disproportionately large number of older people in Wales, we are not entirely sure of those figures, but it is there or thereabouts, which puts the whole situation in proportion. What responsibilities is it envisaged the commissioner will have for certain aspects of provisions for the deaf, particularly in respect of interpreters? I hope that both English and Welsh language interpreters are covered. That leads me to my next question for the Minister. What arrangements will be in place and what influence will the commissioner have in ensuring that, in respect of lip speakers, deaf-blind interpreters and deaf interpreters, both languages are used in Wales? Dealing with the bilingual situation could be extremely important.
	British sign language was officially recognised as a British language in 2003, but there is no one national list of qualified professionals who work for deaf people. That can result in deaf people waiting for communications support to be sourced and in unqualified people being supplied to provide communications. I have an excellent qualified professional in my constituency, Diana Smith, who is particularly concerned about these matters in England, so it seems apposite to raise them in relation to Wales. Could the commissioner establish a single register of language service professionals for deaf people, including providers of British sign language, English interpreters, lip speakers, deaf-blind interpreters and deaf interpreters? I also wonder whether it is within the commissioner's powers to encourage the institutions to protect by law the professional title of those who are qualified to work as language service professionals for all deaf people. I appreciate the fact that those are detailed questions, and if the Minister cannot come up with the answers now, I am quite willing to let him write to me with any information that he may have.
	I should like to know what powers the commissioner can take with regard to the Home Office and the police. In Committee, we established that the commissioner will not have any power that is directly linked to Ministers of the realm. The commissioner will deal with Assembly and devolved matters, as opposed to those that are reserved to this House. That raises a specific issue with disabled people, particularly deaf people: most constabularies in Britain do not hold a list of qualified, security-cleared BSL-English interpreters and lip speakers who can be called to a police station for arrested people who are deaf. The Minister will appreciate that that causes problems. It usually results in deaf detained people being held in custody for many hours without access to communication or representation, and some deaf victims are severely delayed in being able to make their statements to the police.
	I understand that such arrangements do not exist in Walesthe problem is widespread in England and Walesso if those people happen to be elderly, I need to know what influence the commissioner could have over such things, which could be quite crucial to an increasingly large older and deaf population. What are the current arrangements in Wales and what influence will the commissioner have in ensuring that deaf people get equity of access when held by the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and under the forthcoming disability equality scheme? At what level of detail will the commissioner have an influence over the rules and regulations or the mode of practice that needs to be operated in our police stations and by our police services throughout Wales? I hope that that deals with the specific situation for older people who have a hearing disability.
	Turning to the other matter that I wish to raise under the auspices of the amendment, I was approached by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I believe that the Minister is familiar with the briefing that came from that estimable organisation. It was very pleased to provide a brief to many hon. Members, so I claim no credit for raising these points, other than to say that it seemed apposite to raise them through the medium of the amendment, perhaps to express some of its concerns and to ask questions on its behalf.
	The association is very pleased with the Bill. The prevalence of visual impairment increases dramatically with age, as we all know. Indeed, it is only with the aid of the 16-point typeface on my computer that I am able to read the script that is in front of me without the aid of glasses. The Minister obviously relies on glasses. I am told that, at some stage, my eyesight will stop deteriorating, and I am looking forward to that day because it seems to deteriorate daily.

Chris Ruane: Would the hon. Lady like to borrow my glasses?

Cheryl Gillan: No thanks. I appreciate the offer, but I have got big print in front of me.
	RNIB Cymru has estimated that there are 100,000 people with serious sight loss in Wales. As the prevalence of visual impairment increases so much with age and as the number of older people in Wales is predicted to increase dramatically over the next few years, it follows that a dramatic increase is likely in the number of visually impaired older people. It is surprising that, despite the ageing population, the standard of rehabilitation services for blind and partially sighted people remains variable in Wales and, indeed, throughout the UK. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has said that, in some cases, it is indeed very poor.
	There are rehabilitation services for visually impaired people. Rehabilitation training is designed to introduce and maintain a level of independent functioning by enabling blind and partially sighted people to develop the skills that they need to meet their aspirations. Appropriately trained rehabilitation workers play a crucial role.
	Independent research has been carried out and shows a far from pleasing picture. The state of rehabilitation service provision for blind and partially sighted people is not good. There is a chronic shortage of rehabilitation workers. Local authorities are not investing in the necessary training and many authorities in Wales do not have adequate or dedicated services. Since 1995, there has been a shift away from local authority spending on services for people with physical and sensory needs. The result is that many blind and partially sighted people are forced to stay in their homes and are unable to go anywhere without a guide, leading to exclusion from work, social and civic life. What influence will the new commissioner have in that area?
	The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has set up a UK-wide rehabilitation project. It has been very inventive and has a Welsh steering group that is set to take forward the objectives of the rehabilitation project group in Wales. It is also working to secure the future of professional training for rehabilitation workers in several educational institutions, but specifically in Cardiff. What influence will the commissioner have in encouraging Cardiff to secure the future of professional training at that university? Will the commission be able to work with the association and the rehabilitation project on the benchmarking report that was commissioned by the Welsh Local Government Association, the Assembly Government and the Wales Council for the Blind? That is an important group which is carrying out a worthwhile exercise. I would like to ensure that the commissioner has the opportunity to work with that group and the Welsh steering group, so that the quality of life of many thousands of blind and partially sighted people in Wales can be improved.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to put on the record the fact that the commissioner will be encouraged to look at this area and give it a high priority when he takes up office and establishes the commission. I hope that he will be able to reply to both points that I have raised in relation to the deaf and the blind. I hope also that he will take the amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled. I have no intention of pressing it to a vote; it was intended as a vehicle for the Minister to provide reassurance to people outside the Chamber on those two issues.

Nick Ainger: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) introduced her amendment. It seeks to provide the commissioner with a general power to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of provision for those older people who are disabled. That would be an entirely appropriate function for the commissioner and one that I am happy to reassure the House is already provided for in the Bill. The amendment is therefore not necessary.
	Clause 2 enables the commissioner to promote the provision of opportunities for, and the elimination of discrimination against, older people. That would include discrimination against those older people who were disabled. The commissioner's general function to
	promote awareness of the interests of older people in Wales and of the need to safeguard those interests
	and also to
	encourage best practice in the treatment of older people in Wales
	will also support and enable his work in that area. In addition, the commissioner will have powers to review the effect on older people of the discharge of the functions of key bodies, such as the Assembly and local authorities. He will ensure that they fulfil their statutory duties and that they take the needs of disabled older people into account.
	The hon. Lady asked a number of detailed questions, and I shall be more than happy to write to her if I omit some of the issues in my response. She mentioned the discussions that she had had about older people who have hearing problems or who are profoundly deaf, and she asked about statistics. I shall certainly try to find out who, if anyone, keeps such records for Wales, but it is part of the commissioner's remit to establish how many people in Wales suffer from the disabilities to which she referred. I am sure that he will try to access what information is available and, if he is unsuccessful, that he will commission research to determine the relevant figures.
	The hon. Lady also raised important issues about a register of signers and lip speakers. She said that profoundly deaf people who had suffered crime or had been arrested for committing a crime often have great difficulty with communication, and that a local police register of those able to assist in such circumstances would help to ensure that deaf people were not detained unnecessarily in police stations. I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see what can be done in that respect, with a view to addressing the problem as soon as possible.
	The hon. Lady then asked about people who have poor sight or who are blind. I have read the parliamentary brief from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which raises some important issues. The association wants to know whether the commissioner will be able to look into the adequacy of rehabilitation services for visually impaired older people, and the answer is yes. For instance, he could review the processes adopted by a local authority to assess the needs of visually impaired older people, or review how it discharges its training functions in respect of those who provide rehabilitation services. Incidentally, the commissioner will be able to do the same for people with hearing difficulties.
	The commissioner's other functions include undertaking research into rehabilitation services for visually impaired older people. He will also examine individual cases, and publish a report with recommendations about each. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady that the commissioner will have the power to carry out investigations of that nature. I am sure that he will work closely with organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. They will raise issues with him on behalf of disabled older people, and draw his attention to any shortcomings that they identify.
	I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the Bill already deals with the subject of the amendment. The amendment is therefore not necessary, and I ask her to withdraw it.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I look forward to receiving more detail on certain matters in writing. However, I remain concerned that the commissioner may not be able to influence the availability of signers and interpreters in police forces, given that his responsibilities are so clearly linked to matters that have been devolved to the Assembly. The Minister knows that I am concerned about what will happen in practice, and about whether the commissioner will be able truly to represent the interests of older people where they cut across into other areas for which it is not anticipated he will have responsibility. I hope that, by drawing attention to that issue in this fashion and by continually reinforcing my fears, I have at least ensured that the commissioner, in establishing the office, can look back on these debates and know that there is the will to address the problems that he or she will face.
	I look forward to hearing further from the Minister, particularly on Home Office matters, but I am very willing to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9
	  
	Research and educational activities

Greg Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 25, at end insert
	'But no assistance shall be given for research or for educational activities to any political party or to any person, group or body that is engaged in political lobbying nor for any research whose aim or purpose either runs contrary to or is likely to undermine the existing policy of the Assembly.'.
	The purpose of the amendment is to limit the scope of clause 9, which relates to giving assistance for research or education, so that research or educational activities cannot relate to any political party or person who is engaged in political lobbying, or to any aim or purpose that runs contrary to the policy of the Assembly, or which is likely to undermine it.
	In general, I applaud what the Government are doing. I support the Bill's thrust and it is no intention of mine to seek to wreck this measure. I wish to tease out of the Minister whether the Bill needs further improvement, which, in essence, is why I have tabled the amendment.
	I want the commissioner to be a champion for older people in Wales, and it is clear that his role should include the ability to ensure that all older people can access their legal rights. I understand that, in that context, research and educational activities should be supported, but the commissioner should not become an innovating trailblazer. He should not introduce new policy initiatives and, in effect, usurp the duties and responsibilities of the Assembly and its democratically elected Members. One would hope that a good commissioner would appreciate and understand that, without having to have these limitations imposed in writing in the Bill.
	However, for the avoidance of all doubt, it is appropriate that Parliament should say that it expects the commissioner's role to be above party politics and outside the world of professional lobbyists, and certainly that he or she should not be in cahoots with any political faction or party. That is why I tabled the amendment. The commissioner should work with, and be seen to be working with, the Assembly and should not use the powers in clause 9 to undermineintentionally or unintentionallythe Assembly's policies. Therefore, the reason for the amendment is caution. Its purpose is to make it clear that there should be respect for the democratic process that elects Assembly Members, and to express my concern at the possible abuse of this power and the accompanying waste of public money.
	I hope that the Minister agrees with those aims. He might be able to tell the House that the caution that I have expressed can be dealt with in other ways, such as through the commissioner's terms of service or by making sure that his functions are clearly set out and that the research must relate only to those functions. I do not mind how those aims are achieved; if there is another vehicle for achieving them other than the amendment, I will gladly not push it to a vote. I hope that the Minister can accept the aims that I have identified and tell me how they will be delivered.

Mark Williams: We very much welcome the addition of clause 9 to the Bill in the other place. It has been widely welcomed.
	The amendment raises a valid concern, although it goes very much against the grain of our debates on Second Reading and in Committee on protecting the commissioner's independence. Whether it is a probing amendment or a matter that may be carried further, it raises a valid point on how we ensure that the dividing line between legitimate lobbying groups, such as Age Concern Cymru and Help the Aged Cymru, and the commissioner is taken into consideration. How does the Minister envisage the commissioner working with groups such as those to protect the commissioner's independence?

Adam Price: I welcome the interest shown by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) in the effective working of the Bill. Despite my fears about the growing one-party state that we may or may not have in Wales, I cannot imagine circumstances in which a commissioner would sensibly commission research from the Labour party research department. The Conservative party, of course, appears no longer to have a research department, following the announcement a few days ago. I understand the intention behind the amendment and will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
	I offer a little caution, however. I am not sure whether the amendment, in seeking to ensure the independence of the commissioner, might not actually lead to the commissioner being somewhat circumscribed in his ability to look legitimately not at areas of policy debatewhich, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is clearly and rightly the remit of the elected members of the National Assemblybut at grey areas between policy and delivery and how a policy is carried out or what model of delivery is used. Those are legitimate areas where the commissioner could commission research and create a debate, which would of course eventually be resolved by the elected representatives in the National Assembly. I understand the intention, but I am not sure that the amendment would not lead us down a road that would create additional problems.

Cheryl Gillan: Although my name is not attached to the amendment, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Both in this Bill and in the Government of Wales Bill there are widely drawn powers of patronage and financial assistance that, in this case, the commissionerthe Assembly Ministers in the case of the Government of Wales Billcan use to disburse funds to any organisation and to anybody at any time. The amendment strikes me as sensible in ensuring that we have a discussion because yesterday, in discussion of the Government of Wales Bill, a piece of Labour-sponsored, Labour-bought research from the Bevan Foundation was prayed in aid to support it. It is not, then, outwith the possibilities that individuals in Wales, which certainly is not going to remain a one-party state for any length of time, could commission materials for political purposes. For example, the commissioner could ask the Labour party research department or researchers to produce information on older people as members of the Labour party itself. We would not want to see funds flowing from the taxpayer into the back pocket of the Labour party in that sense. The Minister's response will be interesting.
	I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who takes a great interest in these matters, tabled the amendment so that the Minister can give us his full interpretation of the clause. The Opposition always try to work constructively and if the amendment can improve the legislation I shall be only too happy if the Minister adopts it, or proposes one of his own, to ensure that we have the right protection for taxpayers' money.

Nick Ainger: The amendment would restrict the commissioner's ability to provide assistance for undertaking research or educational activities in circumstances where the resultant research or education might challenge the policies of the Assembly Government or involve the commissioner in supporting political lobbying.
	We cannot accept the amendment. We are clear about the necessity for the commissioner to be independent of the Assembly Government, and for him to be able to exercise his functions without being constrained in the way proposedthe point to which the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) referred. It will, therefore, be for the commissioner to act as he thinks appropriate and to defend his actions, if necessary, consistent with his powers.
	By establishing the commissioner, the Government and the Assembly seek to raise standards and to ensure that a wide range of public bodies, the Assembly included, work to respond to the wishes and needs of older people in Wales. It is thus imperative that the policy and operational decisions of the Assembly Government can be challenged by the commissioner if he considers that they are not in the interests of older people in Wales. For instance, the commissioner might want to review the Assembly Government's discharge of their functions in a particular matter, or review the adequacy of legislation they have made. He might want to suggest an alternative policy objective in a particular area by means of a representation on the subject. The ability to undertake or commission research and educational activities will be an important tool in enabling him or her to do that.
	The commissioner will be able to fund research or educational activities only in support of his other functions in the Bill and in the interests of older people in Wales. Funding of party political activities would clearly fall outside the commissioner's remit.
	Restricting the commissioner's ability to fund research undertaken by bodies that are also engaged in political lobbying is, we think, a step too far.
	In our debate on amendment No. 1, we talked about the involvement of organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, and I am sure that Members would not want the commissioner to be precluded from providing funding to respected bodies, such as Help the Aged or Guide Dogs for the Blind, to undertake a research project simply because they also engage in lobbying the Government and the Assembly Government about policies they consider would benefit older people in Wales.

David Davies: No one would want research of that nature restricted, but the amendment is not about restricting or preventing research; it is about making sure that the rules for conducting research are open and transparent.

Nick Ainger: Absolutely. In our debates, nobody has questioned the fact that the commissioner should be open and transparent. The commissioner should be independent both of any political influence and of the Assembly as a whole, and should be able to commission research that he or she feels necessary to work as a champion for older people in Wales.

Stephen Crabb: Does the Minister think it legitimate for an unelected commissioner to campaign against policy priorities set by democratically elected politicians, as, for example, the Children's Commissioner is campaigning against antisocial behaviour orders, saying that they are ineffective and inappropriate for under-18-year-olds in Wales?

Nick Ainger: I am not sure that it is fair to characterise the Children's Commissioner as campaigning against

Stephen Crabb: rose

Nick Ainger: Let me finish the point. I am not sure that it is fair to characterise the Children's Commissioner as campaigning against antisocial behaviour orders in general. I have seen some of the comments that have been made. They are certainly not a blanket rejection of the concept of antisocial behaviour orders. The commissioner takes the view that those should be a last resort. I do not recognise that as a campaign against antisocial behaviour orders. Does the hon. Gentleman still wish to intervene?

Stephen Crabb: indicated dissent.

Nick Ainger: I think that I have covered the point that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) raised. A number of organisations will have already carried out research, including Help the Aged, Age Concern and charities that look after the interests of disabled people. The fear is that if the amendment were accepted, the commissioner would be precluded from asking those organisations, which are effective lobbyists of Government at all levels, for help and information.
	It needs to be emphasised that the commissioner is there to do a clear job: to scrutinise the work of local authorities and the Assembly. The fear is that the amendment could constrain him from doing that work. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), although I understand his concern and the need to throw some light on the issue, to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Knight: We have had an interesting debate. I assure the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) that my interest in Wales is of long standing, although, because of my other duties, regrettably it has been intermittent.
	This issue involves a fine balance. I am not entirely convinced by what the Minister has said, but I accept that there is some force in his argument that one does not want to over-fetter the commissioner, particularly if he uncovers something that he regards as in serious need of addressing which the Assembly is not addressing and he wants to devote some research to it. I see the other side of the coin.
	Conservative Members will keep an eye on the issue and on what the commissioner gets up to. If we feel at any stage that he is exceeding his remit or using the powers unfairly or unreasonably, I promise that we will be back on this very issue. With that indication, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13
	  
	Power of entry and of interviewing

Greg Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 8, line 25, at end insert 'with or without notice.'.
	This is in essence a probing amendment that is aimed at teasing out from the Minister exactly how he sees the commissioner exercising his powers. Of course, all interviews with older people should be conducted with sensitivity and compassion. Such interviews should always be with the consent of the older person, as the Bill recognises. In addition, if that older person wishes someone else to be present when an interview is taking place, that request should be accommodated.
	The timing of a visit is important, too. The Bill accepts that by saying that a visit should always take place at a reasonable time. I hope that that is a subjective test, so that it is a reasonable time for the older person, not a young member of the commissioner's staff. However, I fear that there are cases in which it is inappropriate to provide notice of a visit. There is a risk that before a visit an older person will be subject to duress by someone who does not want a complaint to be pursued. That person may put pressure on them and instruct them not to say anything during a visit, because they do not want them to rock the boat. Such arm twisting may occur and, in some cases, there may be more serious threats or unpleasant reprisals if the older person speaks out.
	The commissioner should have the power to arrive unannounced if he deems it appropriate to do so. As I said, the Bill acknowledges that the older person can refuse a visit, but the amendment would prevent someone of less than benign intent from having the opportunity to bamboozle them or subject them to duress before a visit. En passant, new clause 1 has not been selected because I failed to table it in time, but its powers go wider than the amendment as there is an even stronger case for the commissioner to make an unannounced visit when premises are being inspected. We all know the story of the hospital that is to be visited by the Queenit gets a lick of paint and everything is perfect on the day before it goes back to the way in which it usually operates. Similarly, that happens with organisations and establishments that look after older people. If they know that a VIP is coming, they change things for the duration of the visit. The commissioner should have power across the board to make unannounced visits. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, I hope that he envisages that the commissioner will have those powers in any event.

Nick Ainger: The amendment seeks to make explicit the provision that the commissioner, or someone authorised by him, may enter premises to interview an older person either with or without notice. It is not necessary, because the Bill already allows the commissioner flexibility in the matter. We accept that there may be occasions on which, because of the nature of the concerns or allegations about which the commissioner wishes to interview an older person, he wishes make an unannounced visit. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) failed to table new clause 1 in time, but he alluded to the need to give the commissioner greater powers on entry and inspection. It is not appropriate to give powers for entry and inspection to the commissioner, as that is the responsibility of the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. If a complaint was received by the commissioner and an older person was at risk, he would immediately contact the inspectorate and, depending on the nature of the threat, police and social services, which have the necessary power of entry. It is for those authorities to make an unannounced visit to investigate the complaint.

Greg Knight: The Minister said that the powers were already in the Bill. Does he mean that they are written into the Bill, and if so, could he direct the House to where they are, or does he mean that he envisages the powers being included in some regulations or rules that are to be introduced?

Nick Ainger: I am assured that the powers are in the Bill. I cannot direct the right hon. Gentleman to the exact clause, but the commissioner has the power to enter premisesnot private premises, but premises where care is provided, and so on[ Interruption.] I am advised that the relevant clause is clause 13. I should have read on in my notes. Clause 13 places no requirement on the commissioner to give notice of his intention to enter to interview, but leaves that to his discretion depending on the circumstances.
	6 pm

David Jones: I take the Minister's point. I was concerned about the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) because it seemed to me that that was properly the purview of the Care Standards Inspectorate. The Minister will recall that on Second Reading I raised the matter with him. It seems to me that, to a large extent, in this area the powers of the commissioner cut across those of the Care Standards Inspectorate. Is it therefore anticipated that the rules that will be made governing the activities of the commissioner with clarify his relationship with the Care Standards Inspectorate?

Nick Ainger: There are two distinct roles. If there is a complaint by an older person in a care home about the conditions, the care that he or she has been receiving or poor standards in the home, or an allegation of elder abuse, that complaint may initially go to the commissioner, but I should have thought that if it is an issue of abuse, the police should be involved. If the complaint is about the standard of care or the quality of the home, that should be addressed immediately by the Care Standards Inspectorate. The interview that we are discussing relates to a wider complaint that may be made by an older person. I do not think there is a blurring of powers. With that explanation, I ask the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire kindly to withdraw his amendment.

Greg Knight: The Minister referred me to clause 13, but that is silent on whether the power of entry or of interviewing may be exercised with or without notice, so I can only conclude that he is saying that the silence gives consent. I accept his interpretation.
	My concern is that duress is an easy weapon to use on peoplenot physical duress particularly, but mental duress. I have seen it all too often in cases that were brought before me when I used to practise law, and anything that we can do to stamp it out should have support from every corner of the House. I am therefore pleased that the commissioner will have the power to enter premises other than a private home without giving notice. Without such a power, he would not be able to fulfil his job properly. On the basis of the reassurances that the Minister has given us today

Christopher Chope: Before my right hon. Friend gets carried away with his rhetoric about how wonderful the provision is, does he accept that it is confined to the power to enter premises for the specific purpose of interviewing somebody in those premises, not to carry out a general investigation?

Greg Knight: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says, but a full-blown investigation may often start from evidence that is given in a one-to-one interview. That is why it is important that when an interview takes place, the older person is willing and able to tell the truth without fear of any reprisals. Today, the Minister has assured us that the Bill allows the commissioner to do so without my amendment, and I am prepared to take him at his word.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Nick Ainger: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill received its Second Reading on 15 June, and it was considered in Standing Committee on 27 June. It is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that enables the National Assembly to set up an independent champion for older people, who will play a vital role in addressing ageism and discrimination against older people.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales noted in opening the debate on Second Reading, the position will be the first of its kind in the UK and, indeed, possibly the world. The Bill is another milestone in our commitment to older people in Wales. The commissioner will be able to speak up on behalf of older people in Wales, helping to raise their profile and increase awareness of their needs.
	The policy originated with older people themselves and their representatives, and it is firmly evidence-based. The report of the Assembly Government's expert advisory group, When I'm 64...and more, recommended the establishment of a commissioner for older people. The policy became a key commitment in the Welsh Labour manifesto for the 2003 Assembly elections. The draft Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill was published in March last year and distributed to more than 2,000 stakeholders across Wales. The responses again demonstrated that there is a great deal of support for the proposals, with no fewer than 94 per cent. of respondents in favour of the establishment of the commissioner.
	The draft Bill was also considered and debated by the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee and in a full plenary session, where the motion to welcome the Bill and endorse the commitment to establish a commissioner was overwhelmingly supported. My predecessor as Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on the draft Bill, and I thank him for his role in bringing the legislation to fruition.
	The Bill was introduced in the other place, where it underwent detailed scrutiny and was subject to amendment. Those changes were made for four main reasons: first, to take account of views expressed in the public consultation process; secondly, to clarify the arrangements for working jointly with other commissioners and ombudsmen; thirdly, to clarify the commissioner's role in cross-border matters; and finally, to provide for the commissioner to establish an internal complaints procedure, as a matter of good public administration.
	The rigorous debate that the Bill received in the other place, combined with the amendments that we have introduced to strengthen and clarify the legislation, have stood us in excellent stead for our debates in this House. Both sides of the House have adopted a positive and constructive approach to the Bill, and I am extremely grateful to all hon. Members who have participated.
	The Bill was debated thoroughly in Committee. The discussion covered a wide range of issues, often in some detail. There was a high degree of consensus, and I am grateful to hon. Members for the spirit in which the debate was conducted. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr Hywel Williams) for the professional way in which they chaired the Standing Committee. It is a testament to their wise and skilful chairmanship, and to the constructive and concise contributions by Committee members on both sides, that consideration of the Bill was concluded in less than two sittings.
	Opposition Members tabled a number of amendments, many of which were of a probing nature, where the intentions behind the Bill were explored toI believethe satisfaction of the Committee.

Roger Williams: The Minister knows that innovative Welsh legislation is sometimes imitated in EnglandI am thinking of the Children's Commissioner. However, I am not entirely light-hearted, because one of my constituents was removed to a home in England, and there were accusations that it might have been under duress. I have found it difficult to take that issue forward, and, as I understand it, the Welsh commissioner for older people would not be able to intervene on behalf of a Welsh person in English home.

Nick Ainger: That is not correct. The commissioner will certainly be able to intervene in relation to the local authority, the NHS, or whoever was in charge of commissioning the care for that individual. They will be able to investigate the circumstances surrounding the decision, although they would not be able to gain entry to the care home or hospital to which the hon. Gentleman's constituent was moved.
	The Bill will deliver a true champion for older people in Wales who will speak up on their behalf and work to ensure that older people themselves can influence the way in which important public services are managed and delivered. I commend the Bill to the House.

Cheryl Gillan: I am pleased that we have reached Third Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for his kind comments on the conduct of its passage through the House, although I have to say that it has taken an awfully long time from start to finish. Its gestation period has been incredibleit started in another place on 25 May 2005 and it has taken some 14 months to reach this stage. That is an almost unprecedented length of time for an uncontentious Bill to take to go through this House. I know that the Secretary of State is somewhat preoccupied with getting Royal Assent for the Government of Wales Bill, but had he paid a little more attention to the passage of Bills such as this, he could perhaps have timetabled his business in the Wales Office in a more relaxed fashion that would have avoided him getting so hysterical about the closing stages of the Government of Wales Bill. However, I am pleased that we have reached this stage with this Bill and that it will shortly go for Royal Assent.
	We live in an ageing society in which, for the first time, there are more people over 60 than children under 16. The diversity in our society is more clearly reflected in the older generation as, for example, the first generation of the immigrants of the '50s are making up greater proportions of the over-60s. The demands from our ageing society are constantly changing in terms of the quantity and quality of services required. The independence and well-being of these members of our society is of paramount importance as the increasing impact on public services and access to them present ever greater challenges to us throughout the country. As a country, we need to respond to those matters. That was succinctly put in the Audit Commission report, Older PeopleIndependence and Well-being: The Challenge for Public Services in 2004, which states:
	Either our countries will make decisions about adapting to our ageing societies, or these decisions will be made for us by the sheer force of demographics and economics. It becomes a question of whether we will manage change, or whether change will manage us.
	The Bill is an attempt to manage that change. As such, I am pleased to have joined Members from both sides of the House, and in the other place, in giving it a broad welcome. A commissioner for older people will be an important development for Wales.
	Wales has a growing concentration of older people compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Just over 22 per cent. of people in Walessome 600,000 peopleare over 60. Establishing the commissioner's office will play a significant role in ensuring that the concerns and needs of older people will be heard and recognised and that more can be achieved with regard to offering the opportunities, services and assistance that they require. The commissioner will play a vital role in increasing awareness of the needs of older people and in raising standards.
	It is clear that older people in Wales and across the UK face many difficultiespoor housing, poor employment opportunities and insufficient transport services, to name but a few. There are also problems to do with poor nutrition and health and with access to care facilities. The commissioner offers an opportunity to make a difference and to improve lives across Wales, and that in itself must be welcomed. Indeed, it would be difficult not to welcome the provisions that will now go on to the statute book.
	However, I believe that it is important not to have excessive expectations of what the commissioner and the office of the commissioner can achieve. Furthermore, it is important to establish that the commissioner works alongside Assembly Members and does not simply get saddled with responsibilities that Ministers should discharge in the Assembly on behalf of the people of Wales.
	I am delighted that the commissioner will be available to champion the interests of older people, but that must be in addition to Ministers' roles in doing the same thing. As some of my amendments showed, I believe that we must ensure that the commissioner's duty includes keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of provision for disabled older people. It is important for the commissioner to have influence over the provisions available for disabled people, given that that can pose sizeable problems for older people. Disability clearly adds to the difficulties that an individual faces and it should therefore be in the commissioner's remit to tackle such issues. I was pleased with the Under-Secretary's response earlier in the debate.
	As has been discussed, the commissioner's functions will be confined to devolved matters. For me, that raises significant worries because it means that the commissioner cannot formally intervene in numerous aspects of life that specifically concern older people. Pensions and crime are key examples. The commissioner could not respond to the Turner commission's recommendations and will be cut off from parts of Government policy, the implementation of which causes some of the greatest difficulty for people throughout Wales.
	That poses the question whether the commissioner can tackle the issues and problems that most affect older people. I still have a fear that the limitations on the commissioner's general functions may seriously handicap attempts to discharge those functions as fully as possible and leave him or her toothless in some important matters. That is a significant weakness in the Bill.
	The Government should have considered formalising the route whereby the commissioner could approach UK Ministers. The Under-Secretary did not answer the question of how the commissioner could obtain genuine representational opportunities about non-devolved issues. As a result of that limitation, we must be realistic about what the commissioner can achieve.
	I continue to be worried about the way in which the commissioner will be funded. The Under-Secretary appreciates my reservations on the matter because the commissioner will be paid from ministerial budgets. I question whether it is right that an individual whose role is to scrutinise the actions of Assembly Ministers should have his or her salary paid by the people whom he or she could be examining. There is a question mark over the potential effect on the commissioner's independence and impartiality, which is of paramount importance.
	Having said that, I support the Bill, but not uncritically. I have sought to raise several questions that the measure poses. Some have been answered to my satisfaction but others remain unanswered. We must wait and see how, in its practical application, the office of the commissioner pans out.
	I am glad that we have had the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly but I am saddened that the Government of Wales Bill, when it receives Royal Assent, will deny us the opportunity for such scrutiny in future. I join the Under-Secretary in thanking all hon. Members who took part in scrutinising the Bill. I also thank those who chaired our proceedings. I thank the Under-Secretary for his courtesy in the letters that he sent me during the Bill's passage. I hope that the measure will be used to best effect and provide great benefits for the people of Wales.

Mark Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) signalled on Second Reading that the Liberal Democrats would support the Bill, and I can confirm that we continue to do so. This has been an invaluable opportunity to explore the ways in which the interests of older people are represented and protected in Wales. The figures speak volumes, with 20 per cent. of the population in Wales being over pensionable age, compared with the UK average of 18 per cent. In my own constituency, 25 per cent. of the people would fall within the remit of the commissioner. In that context, the establishment of that role is very welcome.
	The eager and enthusiastic language that we have used to describe the provisions has included terms such as pioneering, trailblazing and a champion, and I share the optimism and enthusiasm for the measure that many hon. Members have expressed. I also share some of the concerns that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has just expressed, however. There is real concern about the limitations of the commissioner's role, for example. In Committee, the Liberal Democrats argued the case for a strengthened role for the commissioner, and for his or her powers to extend far beyond those proposed in the Bill.
	In a Wales-only setting, the commissioner's powers come close to those that we would like to see. The commissioner will be able to investigate and make recommendations on the practices of local health boards, local authorities, further and higher education establishments, and many other important groups. He or she will also have the power to investigate individual cases in those areas. Although we would have given the commissioner greater powers of enforcement, the important point is that he will be able to interact directly with those bodies and to act as a real force for positive change, eliminating discrimination and malpractice.
	There are areas in which we would have strengthened the commissioner's powers further, even in a non-devolved setting. We tabled amendments to give the commissioner greater powers to stop elder abuse. We also argued that an investigated body should be required to give a response to the commissioner within six months. Our debates in Committee were quite repetitive, in that amendments kept being tabled on the same theme. Here we come to the crux of the debate. The theme was that the commissioner must be able to make a real difference to the lives of older people. To do that, that person will require a sufficiently broad remit, and sufficiently tough powers, in every area that affects those whose interests he looks after.
	The Bill is not particularly different from the one that we saw on Second Reading, in that it still outlines proposals for a commissioner with two dramatically different spheres of influence. The commissioner's powers in relation to reserved matters are markedly weaker, in that he or she will not have the power to require UK Government Departments to respond directly on non-devolved matters. Pensions, benefits and employment are all reserved matters, and we know from our surgeries that they are also some of the most important issues for our older people. Citizens Advice has told us that 80 per cent. of the cases that it deals with are connected with pensions and tax credits, yet the Bill still leaves the commissioner virtually impotent in those key areas.
	Any member of the public can write to a Minister, but the commissioner will be prohibited from doing so in his official capacity. If an older person comes to the commissioner to complain about the administration of his pension, for instance, the commissioner will be unable to make representations to the relevant Minister at UK level. Nor will he have the power to summon witnesses and examine documents from the Department for Work and Pensions or Jobcentre Plus. Any recommendations that he makes will have to be made in general terms, and will have to get through two sets of gatekeepers, the Assembly and the Secretary of State, who will have no statutory obligation to respond. The fundamental issue is the accessibility of the commissioner to our constituents. Sadly, the Bill fails on that level.
	The role of the Children's Commissioner, which was established through a laudable piece of legislation, has often been cited as an example in our discussions. When the Children's Commissioner appeared before the Welsh Affairs Committee on 22 April 2004, he said:
	I do not have my strongest powers in the area of non-devolved matters. I cannot require documentation to be given to me. I cannot require the attendance of witnesses to give evidence on oath if I am conducting an inquiry. From the point of view of being the most powerful children's champion possible, it would be good from my perspective if the current Children Bill were amended to extend my powers over those matters.
	The experience of the children's commissioner speaks volumes about what we have been trying to achieve during the passage of the Bill, and we may have to return to those matters in future. I hope that some of them will be addressed in the memorandum of understanding between the Assembly and the newly appointed commissioner. The appointment will be made soon, in 2007, which is to be welcomed.
	The commissioner's post will be the first of its kind in the world, and has huge potential to enrich people's lives. Despite my scepticismI do not want to be pessimisticI support what is in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats wish the commissioner every success, and we sincerely hope that, through the Bill, the Government have given him the tools that he needs to do an effective job and, above all, to provide the accessibility to respond to our constituents' demands.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

PETITIONS

Safer Stations

Dawn Butler: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 5,000 individuals who are concerned about security at railway stations. At present, too few stations are staffed during the hours of operation, and many have inadequate CCTV or even help points. Too few have functioning ticket barriers during the hours of operation. The petitioners call on the rail companies to recognise their responsibility for passenger safety and to put people before profits.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons,
	The Petition of London residents declares that many overland rail stations in London are not properly staffed at night.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that all overland rail stations are property staffed during the whole of their hours of operation after dark.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Wildlife Crime

David Kidney: I wish to present a petition to the House calling on Parliament and Government to reduce wildlife crime. The petition is organised by my constituent, the brave and indefatigable Faye Burton, who is also organiser of the rural policing liaison group. It has 1,274 signatures.
	The petition states:
	Your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to ensure that:
	Judicial sentences reflect the serious nature of all wildlife crime...
	All wildlife crime is entered into a nationwide database that enables the sharing of information
	All police forces appoint a full-time wildlife officer to police wildlife crime
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Disabled Parking

Andrew Pelling: I am pleased to present a petition organised by Disability Croydon and Mr. Alwyn D'Costa regarding the need for a unified blue badge parking scheme.
	The petition states:
	The Petition declares that the existing Blue Badge scheme has too many exemptions and variations making it difficult for disabled drivers to know the validity of their Badge when parking in certain parts of the country.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons vote to introduce a unified Blue Badge disabled parking scheme that covers the whole of England and Wales.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Halton Hospital

Mike Hall: Earlier this afternoon, several constituents of mine and of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), came to Parliament to pass me a petition expressing their concerns about the proposed transfer of in-patient activity from Halton hospital. The petition is signed by Mrs. Pauline Warrener and 23,000 other people.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of the residents of Halton and others
	Declares that North Cheshire Hospitals Trust are proposing to transfer all in-patient activity from Halton General Hospital that will result in 5 wards being transferred from Halton General Hospital to Warrington General Hospital and these proposals are causing great concern to the people of Runcorn,
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure North Cheshire Hospital Trust retains in-patient admission to Halton General Hospital.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Pedestrian Crossings

Celia Barlow: I wish to present a petition in the name of my constituent Ms Polly Strauss of Wolstonbury road in Hove. The petition was signed by 802 of my constituents. I entirely agree with the terms of the petition, which calls for safe pedestrian crossings at the junction of the Old Shoreham road and Dyke road in Hove. The junction is next to Brighton, Hove and Sussex sixth form college, and a safer flow of traffic would also benefit the students who must use the crossing every day.
	Although there has recently been some progress locally, I still believe that the local campaign deserves to be presented to the House. The petition states
	The Petition of BHASVIC Lights Action Group,
	Declares that there is a need for a traffic free phase at the junction of the Old Shoreham Road and Dyke Road in Hove, East Sussex, in the interests of the safety of the thousand or more pedestrians who use the junction each day.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action to encourage the local council to undertake the adaptation of this crossing to facilitate the passage of pedestrians, and not prioritise ease of traffic flow over the safety of pedestrians.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	I concur, and I am happy to present the petition to the House.
	 To lie upon the Table.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Jonathan Shaw.]

Jamie Reed: The issue of long-term management of long-lived and highly active radioactive wastes in the UK, although by no means neglected, has been in a vacuum since 1997.
	Let me make clear from the outset that this debate was not prompted by the recently published energy review and the overdue recognition of the essential role that nuclear energy has to play as part of a balanced and secure energy policy. The issue of radioactive waste management policy was not made more urgent by the outcome of the energy review; it was already a pressing issue in need of swift resolution. Attempts to link new nuclear generation with the current lack of a long-term disposal route for radioactive wastes are disingenuous and confused. Whether or not new nuclear reactors are built in this country, we urgently need a policy solution for the long-term management of radioactive waste.
	Given that more than 60 per cent. of the nation's radioactive wastes currently reside in my constituency, my constituents and I have a clear and undeniable interest in this policy area, and I believe that our opinions should be listened to first and foremost in emerging policy discussions. That is morally right, for no other part of the United Kingdom takes a more keen or detailed interest in these issues than the residents of Copeland.
	Copeland's unique interest is illustrated by figures relating to current radioactive waste volumes and expected future volumes as a result of decommissioning. The latest available figures for waste volumes in the UK are from 2004. Nationally, there are 1,890 cu m of high-level waste, 82,500 cu m of intermediate-level waste and 20,900 cu m of low-level waste. Prior to 2004, some 960,000 cu m of low-level waste was disposed of at the low-level waste facility near Sellafield in my constituency. Sellafield houses all the high-level waste and approximately 70 per cent. of the intermediate-level waste. The total volume of radioactive waste in the UK, including expected future arisings as a result of decommissioning, is approximately 2,270,000 cu m. Of that, high-level waste will constitute less than 0.1 per cent., intermediate-level waste 9.5 per cent., and low-level waste slightly over 90.4 per cent.
	The draft recommendations of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management include support for a deep geological repository for intermediate-level waste, with the provision of robust interim provision before any repository construction. Intermediate-level waste stores cost between 80 and 100 million. A new one is currently being built at Sellafield, three more will be needed, and as of now a further two will be needed if a repository is not available before 2040. In addition, each reactor site in the UK is currently required to have an intermediate-level waste storage facility during care and maintenance operations.
	This is a complex policy area encompassing many social, scientific and environmental issues. Regrettably, those three main strands of any effective policy have often been obscured by organisational issues relating to policy implementation. The Government's establishment of CoWRM was an essential step in the establishment of an appropriate and transparent policy production process.
	Importantly, the creation of CoRWM maintained the separation of radioactive waste management policy production and implementation by the same body. Following the publication of CoRWM's final recommendations, my community will clearly expect to enter into a dialogue with the Government, as will other communities with an interest in these issues. Speaking as someone who has worked for and within the nuclear industry and as someone who has worked for Nirex, I have a detailed understanding of the internal workings of the industry, which few, if any, other Members possess.
	The Government are the first in our history to confront the policy and funding implications caused to the UK by the nation's civil and military nuclear liabilities. Such engagement was long overdue and the Government should be commended for the clarity and rigour of their treatment of the issue thus far. The establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority was a brave and necessary step and I am personally proud to be part of a Government who have faced up to their obligations, not only to the taxpayer, but to the environment and to my constituents in this regard. The NDA has proved its commitment to west Cumbria by locating its headquarters there. Although there is still much to be done, including the need to resolve pension issues, the NDA has established itself as a key, trusted community partner, as I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) would agree.
	Unlike in the United States, where the Department of Energy sets annual budgets for nuclear decommissioning and clean-up, the NDA has established an enviably robust financial framework through the development of life-cycle baseline plans and near-term work plans for all of its sites. Those plans are designed to deliver cost-effective programmes of work without compromising environmental or safety standards. Indeed, those two qualities are foremost in all its work. They also deliver certainty and enable effective planning and investmentunlike the ad hoc American model, which is not efficient, stable or predictable. In my view, such uncertainty impinges on safe operations.
	The NDA's current estimate for the clean-up of the UK's military and civil nuclear liabilities stands at approximately 70 billion. That figure contains some 14 billion used to operate income-generating plants, but does not include the likely costs of the establishment of a repository. The financial modelling is still a work in progress and the NDA is expected by the Government to produce robust costings for decommissioning and clean-up by 2008.
	Given that the Government are committed to achieving the best possible value for money from the public pursea key feature of the forthcoming comprehensive spending reviewthat is a huge uncertainty to have to carry. The uncertainty is brought about by the lack of a policy relating to final disposal for intermediate and high-level radioactive wastes and it is not good for the taxpayer, for the Government, for the industry or for potential repository host communities.
	CoRWM is widely expected to report its recommendations to the Government by the end of this month and provided that they follow the already published draft recommendations, the Government should accept them. The process of producing the policy recommendations has necessarily been lengthy and laborious, but given the disastrous mess made by the last Conservative Government and the shocking failure of Nirex, a lengthy and transparent process was, and remains, entirely proper.
	While I was thinking of Nirex in preparation for this debate, I was reminded of the great Hunter S. Thompson. Those familiar with his work will know that his excoriating writing illustrates that the truth is more often than not stranger than fiction. The experience of Nirex endured by my community in the mid-1990s was so wretched that I was minded to entitle this debate Fear and loathing in west Cumbria, for there are few more accurate words with which to describe the reaction that Nirex still provokes in my constituency to this day.
	My constituency still bears the scars of its regrettable encounter with Nirex in the 1990s. The arrogance and contempt with which the company treated locally elected representatives will never be forgotten. The imperial way in which it assumed that it was beyond reproach was staggering and the political, social and reputational damage that it brought to the whole of Cumbria was incalculable. Thankfully, the company met its nemesis in the late Bill Minto, OBE, the then leader of Cumbria county council.
	At this juncture, I would like to point out that I worked for Nirex for a little over a year before, like many others, being made redundant. Some may mistakenly assume that my attitude to the company is somehow shaped by that experience[Hon. Members: No!]but that would be naive and insulting. My attitude to the company is informed purely by concerns relating to effective policy implementation. The Government have brought rigour, but so far no real clarity, to that policy area through the establishment of CoRWM. Before such clarity can be established, the Government should act to remove the agencies responsible for preventing it from being achieved because without clarity, successful policy implementation is impossible.
	It is my long-held view that the continued existence of Nirex is the principal obstacle to the successful implementation of any radioactive waste management policy in this country. As an organisation, Nirex inspires suspicion and distrust. I can foresee no circumstance in which that organisation can assist in the implementation of radioactive waste management policy. Regrettably, as long as Nirex exists, the issues surrounding radioactive waste management policy in Britain are bound to remain unresolved. As if to prove its unsuitability for its continued existence, the Nirex management team have furiously lobbied MPs for months with regard to their case for its continued existence. I find the prospect of a publicly funded body aggressively lobbying democratically elected legislators not only absurd, but faintly obscene.
	Although Nirex insists that it has made serious and concerted attempts to change its behaviour in recent years, it remains a byword for everything that was wrong with the old nuclear industry. Moreover, a covert lobbying programme using public funds is hardly the hallmark of a mature, responsible and transparent organisation. After all these years, the company still believes that the secret to achieving stakeholder respect is to creep and scuttle in the shadows. Any attempt by the company to change its name would invite ridicule and further distrust. There are no options available for Nirex. In my view, time has run out. It must be dissolved if the country is to make progress on this policy of essential environmental importance and intergenerational social justice.
	Nirex is not independent; it is jointly owned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry. Ninety per cent. of its funding comes from the NDA, with the remainder from the Ministry of Defence. It is even a member of the Nuclear Industry Association. It would appear that old habits clearly die hard. Nor is Nirex a regulator, as the House was correctly told on Monday.
	With all that in mind, it must be recognised that Nirex contains a great deal of unique intellectual property. I have had the pleasure of working closely with those people in the past and know that, in the main, they possess impeccable integrity and ability. They have an essential role to play in the nuclear industry, but their attributes are squandered under the stewardship of the Nirex management. They deserve to be allowed to make their contribution to the policy in an environment and an organisation, or organisations, that can properly utilise their skills. That organisation is not and can never be Nirex, so we now need to be clear about ways forward on this policy.
	Following the publication of the CoRWM recommendations at the end of this monthI assumethe Government could reasonably consider a number of options to establish an effective implementation body for radioactive waste management policy. The first essential step is the dissolution of Nirex. Then consideration could be given to allocating the skills and abilities of the work force, perhaps across the nuclear installations inspectorate, the Environment Agency, the NDA and perhaps even a successor body to CoRWM. That is, of course, entirely possible, and the Government should consider the fact that a replacement body for Nirex could be established that would be untainted by any association with the successive failures and the management of that company. It might even be the case that, once a volunteer site is found for the repository, the local authority in that area should determine what arrangements and structures should be established. In fact, CoRWM's ninth draft recommendation states:
	Community involvement should be achieved through the development of a partnership approach, based on an open and equal relationship between the potential host community and those responsible for implementation.
	The Minister will know that I have made representations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the establishment of the national nuclear laboratory in my constituency. That, too, would be an ideal structure and environment in which to house the undoubted skills of those experts, and I hope that that will be considered.
	This is not the first timeand it might not be the lastthat I have requested the dissolution of Nirex on the record. As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I have made that point separately but in public session to both the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Professor Gordon McKerron, the chair of CoRWM. The comments that I made to Professor McKerron many months ago may well have precipitated the ill-advised lobbying onslaught from Nirex management.
	To reiterate, the dissolution of Nirex is an essential first step in successfully implementing future waste management policy. As long as Nirex exists, that will remain an intractable policy issue with no prospect of resolution. The policy has been without meaningful momentum for too long now. Prevarication and procrastination have been its hallmark since the mid-1990s. As a nation, we cannot afford to inject undue haste into the process, but neither can we afford to hide behind short-term political expediency as an excuse for inaction. Clearly, that is better left to the Leader of the Opposition. The truth is that we need action now.
	The fact that I have secured this debate today should not be misunderstood. Let me emphasise that I am not volunteering my constituency as a host for a future repositorynothing could be further from the truthand as long as I have anything to do with it, Nirex will never dig another sod of turf in west Cumbria. The purpose of this debate is twofold: to seek a comprehensive and detailed process that will establish transparency and accountability in radioactive waste management policy production and implementation and to urge the Government to take the necessary decisions now, which will make the resolution of the issue possible. That will be to the benefit of communities with an interest in nuclear issues throughout the country, not simply Copeland. However, given the unique importance of Copeland in this important national policy area, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can commit to entering a dialogue with Copeland borough council and me, following the Government's response to the CoRWM recommendations. By way of informing that dialogue, I intend to send my hon. Friend the recently produced draft nuclear policy statement from Copeland borough council, a thorough piece of work and a worthy basis on which to establish future discussions.
	So far, the Labour Party in government has shown that it is the only party prepared to take the necessary decisions with regard to the nuclear industry. We know that the other parties do not understand the issues, as they consistently demonstrate with their confused comments. I am proud to belong to a party of government with the courage and intellectual conviction to do what is right in this area. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister shares my desire to establish clarity in the implementation of future radioactive waste policy sooner rather than later, and I look forward to his response.

David Drew: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on calling it. I have two main points and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond to them tonight, or perhaps in further discussions.
	First, I hear the pleas about Nirex made by my hon. Friend, and I share many of his concerns. However, I also share the concern, which is probably outside the main drift of the debate, about the suggestion that Nirex could be assimilated by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. I am not prepared to rule that out, but neither am I prepared to rule it in at the moment. It is unhelpful in advance of CoRWM's final report that we should already have two organisations attacking each other in public, let alone in private. It does not demonstrate that we are dealing with mature organisations working in this vital industry. It also comes on the back of the announcement that we are considering rebuildsomething for which my hon. Friend and I, and other hon. Members present, have long argued. The last thing we want is to grab defeat from the jaws of victory because of that unnecessary battle. I look forward to the final CoRWM report. I am sure that it will have something to say about Nirex and about the relationship between it and the NDA. But we should have the report and then the debate, and not make the decision beforehand.
	My second point is that at a time when the industry has had the lift of the strong possibility of new buildalthough we cannot deliver it immediatelyit is worrying that only limited numbers of people work in the industry. Their psychology and capacity is vital. I want to be clear that when we get the CoRWM report, we should do whatever we can to retain them, because come what may in terms of the rebuild of the industry, we have to deal with decommissioning. We need to keep people in the industry, and that is why we should stop the obsession with constant restructuring. My hon. Friend will be used to going into Sellafield, as I am used to going into Berkeley, to be told that it is having another reorganisation. I do not know what it is to go into Berkeley without having the staff talk to me about another reorganisation. Usually, however, the reorganisation is more of the same and there is some stability in the industry. In the past two years we have seen nothing but instability, and that is why I am critical of any decisions that have apparently been taken in advance of the CoRWM report.
	I shall conclude with the parochial plea that I mentioned earlier. This is a vital time for Berkeley, as there are proposals that it should be used a test case for the full decommissioning of the old Magnox reactors. The Minister will know about those proposals, as will my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy.
	Although Berkeley cannot be turned back into a greenfield site, most of the remaining nuclear material would be taken away. However, it is important to understand that the proposals mean that some of the low-level nuclear waste would continue to be stored there. That is worth considering, but we need confusion about how to deal with managing the waste like we need a hole in the head.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland mentioned a figure of 70 billion, but much of that is predicated on the belief that it will take a long time to decommission our nuclear industry. That decommissioning must be done safely, but we will gain two advantages if we can show that the technology is capable of delivering it quickly: we will save some money, and we will become the world leader in the field. We will then be able to sell our skills to the nuclear industry around the world, as we have done previously.
	I want clarity regarding the fact that the suggestion about the Berkeley station will not be affected by arguments about the management of the nuclear waste stream, and that the CoRWM report will get a proper hearing and not be disadvantaged by noises off.
	I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government are convinced that this country has a nuclear future. I believe that that is a necessity: we can argue about how much of a role nuclear can play, but there will be no future without it. The Government have turned the corner and accepted that nuclear has a role to play, but I do not want to hear again that we have ended up grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

Ian Pearson: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on securing this Adjournment debate on the policy concerning radioactive waste management. The Government and the devolved Administrations are committed to finding a solution to the nuclear legacy. While others have talked about the problem, this Government are taking action.
	The Government have acted to deal with the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK's older publicly owned civil nuclear sites, through the establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in the Energy Act 2004. We are also conducting a review of low-level waste management policy, and are currently considering the responses to a consultation. We will publish a statement this autumn.
	The Government's Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme follows on from consultation in September 2001. It develops radioactive waste policy following a series of failed initiatives previously, and draws on the lessons that we have learned from that experience.
	The outcome of the consultation was the establishment of the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management in the second half of 2003. My hon. Friends the Members for Copeland and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) both mentioned the role played by the committee, whose task was to provide a recommendation on the best option, or combination of options, for the long-term management of the UK's higher-activity radioactive waste. It was asked to produce its recommendations on the basis of a wide programme of public and stakeholder engagement, and also to sound out the views of the scientific and expert community.
	I believe that CoRWM has broken new ground in the open and transparent way in which it has conducted its affairs. It has engaged the public and stakeholders in the process, and it has fully considered the best scientific evidence. Its deliberative decision making has been carried out in open plenary sessionstherefore, quite literally, in public.
	There has been a wide range of scientific and other expert input to CoRWM's work. For example, last December more than 70 independent experts were involved in the assessment of CoRWM's short-listed options against its agreed assessment criteria, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chief scientist has set up an expert panel to advice, and provide support to, CoRWM. Those are only two examples of the expert input that has gone into the committee's work. Its interim recommendations have been well received by bodies such as the Royal Society and the Geological Society.
	CoRWM has held more than 30 open plenaries at various locations in the UK, in addition to round tables, citizen panels and a stakeholder forum. It also consulted more than 13,000 young people in Bedford and Luton as part of its schools project. I am particularly pleased about that, as it is important that the views of the young are reflected in reaching decisions about matters of such an important and long-lasting nature.
	Based on all that work and expert input and the results of its public and stakeholder engagement, CoRWM produced its interim recommendations in April. In them, it concluded that deep geological disposal is the best available approach to the long-term management of waste, that a programme of interim storage is also required and that the Government should explore the concept of partnership with local communities as part of any future facility-siting process. CoRWM put those draft recommendations out to consultation, and we understand that they have been well received.
	CoRWM's final report will be published at the end of July, in line with its published timetable. As hon. Members will recognise, as the report is not yet finalised I am not in a position to be able to respond to it. The Government will make a formal response to CoRWM when the House returns. We are keen to make progress on this matter, and will make the response as soon as practicable after the Parliaments and the Welsh Assembly reconvene.
	I look forward to receiving CoRWM's report, and in the meantime I would like to make several general observations in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. First, I must stress the importance of securing the confidence of both the public and stakeholder groups in any future programme. Whatever decisions are taken, I can say that the future programme will not be like previous failed programmes. We have learned from those failures. We believe that CoRWM has set the standards for openness and transparency in the way in which it has conducted its programme.
	In future, we must also win the confidence of any communities that might be willing to host waste management facilities. In that respect, I note the points made by my hon. Friend concerning the interests of Cumbria, and I can assure him that the Government have learned from mistakes made in the past, and plan to work constructively in partnership with all communities that have an interest in this matter.
	Public safety and environmental protectionboth now and for future generationswill be our utmost concern in taking forward the programme for the long-term management of the UK's higher activity wastes. The Government well understand the importance of independent scrutiny in respect of issues of nuclear power. In taking this programme forward, we will ensure that there is a robust regulatory regime and independent oversight. We will continue to look to the independent regulatory bodiesthe Health and Safety Executive, and the Environment Agency in England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, or SEPA, in Scotlandto ensure the safety of people and the environment.
	It might be helpful if I outline to the House the process of regulation of safety for higher level radioactive wastes. The nuclear operators are required to demonstrate to the regulators that the risks to the public and the environment from their activities, including the management of radioactive waste, are reduced to as low as is reasonably practicable. In support of their safety cases for packaging and disposal of radioactive waste, the operators seek advice from Nirex.
	Nirex's role is, in support of Government policy, to develop and advise on safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable options for the long-term management of radioactive materials; as has been said, it has unique intellectual property. But it is the independent regulators who take decisions on the acceptability of waste conditioning and packaging safety cases that are submitted to them. The environment agencies and the Health and Safety Executive have teams that scrutinise Nirex's contribution to the safety case process. The independent regulators are responsible for applying and determining the statutory safety requirements of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.
	 It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .[Tony Cunningham.]

Ian Pearson: There have been some recent inaccurate reports in the press and elsewhere about Nirex. Nirex is not a regulator. It is not a nuclear watchdog and it not responsible for nuclear safety in the United Kingdom. It is a company jointly owned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry, and which advises nuclear site operators on the preparation of the industry's safety case submissions to the regulators concerning the conditioning and packaging of waste. I should also point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland did, that Nirex receives well over 90 per cent. of its funding from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
	The NDA was set up in April 2005 to take responsibility for the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK's older, publicly owned civil nuclear sites under the Energy Act 2004. The NDA has statutory responsibilities to protect people, to safeguard the environment and to preserve nuclear security, operating in an open and transparent manner. Government decisions on long-term radioactive waste management post-CoRWM will be a crucial factor in achieving those aims, as the NDA's own strategy recognises. In our response to CoRWM, the Government will want to make sure that full and proper arrangements for independent scrutiny and advice are in place.
	Since 2003, CoRWM has provided a vital means for the independent assessment of nuclear waste issues, which is key to ensuring that all of us have confidence in the arrangements for the long-term management of waste. This process will span several decades and it is important for it to command widespread public confidence. We will ensure that the framework is both robust and based at root on clarity and transparency. The Government are determined, in their response to the CoRWM report, to ensure continued independent oversight, in order to give confidence to the public and to make sure that the highest standards are maintained.
	We have had a programme of civil nuclear power in this country for 50 years, and the solution to the waste problem has eluded successive Governments. This Government are committed to making a real start in developing the solution, but we recognise that if it is to be a genuine solution, we cannot do this alone. We are confident that the approach taken by CoRWM provides the basis for moving forward. I look forward to its final report, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland and for Workington (Tony Cunningham), along with local government representatives in their areas, to discuss its findings.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Seven o'clock.